Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For University of St. Andrews, University of Glasgow, University of Aberdeen, and University of Edinburgh, in the room of Dugald McCoig Cowan, Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Walter Rea.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Aire and Calder Navigation Bill.
East Worcestershire Water Bill.
South West Suburban Water Bill.
South Metropolitan Gas (No. 1) Bill.
South Metropolitan Gas (No. 2) Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time.

Post Office (Sites) Bill,

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 5th day of February, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Post Office (Sites) Bill.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the
following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Rochester, Chatham and Gillingham Joint Sewerage District) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time to-morrow.

Cardiff Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till To-morrow, at half-past Seven of the Clock.

Taunton Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 27th February.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

EXPORTS (TRADE AGREEMENTS).

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: 1.
asked the Secretary for Mines what were the increased quantities of British coal expected to be exported to Germany, Sweden, Denmark, and other countries as the result of the recent trade agreements; and what has been the increase in exports up to the present time in each case?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): As the reply is mainly statistical I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the reply:
The increases in exports of British coal which were expected to result from the operation of the coal provisions of the Trade Agreements with Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Finland, as compared with the exports in 1931, together with the actual increase of coal exports to those countries in 1933 as compared with 1931, are given in the following Table. With regard to the actual increases last year, it should be noted that the various agreements in no case operated for the full year, the actual dates of operation being Denmark and Iceland 1st July, 1933; Norway and Sweden 1st August, 1933; Finland 1st December, 1933.

Country.
Estimated annual increase as compared with 1931.
Increase in actual exports in 1933 as compared with 1931.




Statute Tons.


Denmark
…
1,315,000
1,266,787


Iceland
…
20,000
69,734


Norway
…
523,000
335,663


Sweden
…
1,045,000
909,830


Finland
…
394,000
216,342


Total
…
3,297,000
2,798,356

With regard to Germany, comparison is made between the years 1933 and 1932 as the quota (for coal and coke imports into the German Customs area, i.e., excluding coal and coke for the Free Harbour areas and for use as bunkers at German ports which remain free) was reduced to 100,000 (metric) tons a month on 1st April, 1932, and increased under the Agreement of 8th May, 1933, by a minimum of 80,000 (metric) tons a month.

The increase in actual exports of coal and coke to Germany in the eight months commencing 1st May, 1933, as compared with the corresponding period in 1932, is 424,617 statute tons.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 4.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will state the figures of coal imports to Denmark provided for in the Danish Trade Agreement; whether the deliveries up to date have been maintained at the level anticipated in that agreement; and whether there has been any delay or diminution in the supply arising from the operation of the quotas fixed for coal production in this country or from any other cause?

Mr. E. BROWN: The Anglo-Danish Trade Agreement provides that not less than 80 per cent. of the total coal imports into Denmark shall be imported from the United Kingdom. During the first five months' operation of the agreement, which is the latest period for which statistics are available, the deliveries of coal to Denmark were slightly in excess of that percentage. So far as I am aware no difficulties with regard to supplies have arisen as a result of the quota system, but I understand that in certain instances there have been delays in shipment from Blyth arising from other causes. I have
urged on the interests concerned the necessity for obviating these delays.

Mr. GRENFELL: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House what were the other causes?

Mr. BROWN: There has been some trouble in respet of delays in loading. My hon. Friend will understand that there has been a heavy concentration of orders from Scandinavian countries at this port, and for that reason some congestion was probably inevitable.

MINES REORGANISATION COMMISSION.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 3.
asked the Secretary for Mines the cost and expenses to date of the Mines Reorganisation Commission since their inception?

Mr. E. BROWN: The total cost of the Commission to 12th February, 1934, has been £68,530, of which £9,256 may be recoverable in accordance with Section 12 (3) of the Coal Mines Act, 1930.

COAL MINES ACT, 1930 (AMENDING BILL).

Captain SPENCER: 9.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is yet in a position to state the Government's policy as to the amendment of the central scheme under the Coal Mines Act, 1930?

Mr. E. BROWN: Yes, Sir. I hope to introduce this week a Bill to amend Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, by providing for the inter-district co-ordination of minimum prices by the central council and for the freedom of coal for export from quantitative control.

Mr. ROBINSON: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the Bill has been reached by agreement with the coalowners, or is it a Bill which will be introduced in default of an agreement?

Mr. BROWN: My hon. and gallant Friend will know that the coalowners have agreed by a large majority that these two purposes are desirable, but they have not agreed upon the method. This Bill is the Government's solution of the method.

Mr. DICKIE: Can the hon. Member say whether the Bill deals with the export trade?

Mr. BROWN: I think hon. Members had better await the Bill.

BROOMFIELD PIT, STONEHOUSE, LANARKSHIRE (SUNDAY WORKING).

Mr. MAXTON: 10.
asked the Secretary for Mines what was the nature of the emergency that necessitated the working of the Broomfield Pit, Stonehouse, Lanarkshire, on two successive Sundays, 28th January and 4th February?

Mr. E. BROWN: I am not quite clear as to the hon. Member's meaning. There is nothing in the Coal Mines Acts to render Sunday working illegal, and I have no powers in the matter. I understand on inquiry that some coal is drawn at this pit every Sunday and that some extra coal winding was carried out on the two Sundays in question for special reasons connected with machine working, but I am not aware of any contravention of the Coal Mines Acts. I should like to take this opportunity of saying, as I have said before, that I strongly disapprove of any coal winding on Sundays.

Mr. MAXTON: Has the Minister of Mines sent one of his inspectors to that particular pit to see whether there is any regular evasion of the Mines Act taking place, not merely in connection with Sunday labour, but in connection with other operations as well?

Mr. BROWN: Inspection has been made, and, as my Hon. Friend knows, his question was down for written reply up till yesterday, and my latest information had to be obtained by telephone this morning, so I am not aware of the latest developments, but he will understand that the problem here, in times of emergency, is in terms of a contravention of the Act of 1908, with regard to overtime working, and it would apply equally whether the working was on Monday or any other day of the week.

Mr. BATEY: Is the Minister aware that coal getting on Sunday is not the custom of the mining industry, and when introducing legislation, will he make provision to make it illegal to draw coal on Sunday?

Mr. BROWN: I should want to consider that, but I would point out that under the Lord's Day Observance Act of 1667, which is the only Act under which proceedings can be taken, they must be taken by way of the common informer.

Mr. T. SMITH: Can the hon. Member say whether there was any coal getting on Sunday, apart from the winding?

Mr. BROWN: Yes, I understand there was coal winding carried out on Sunday there.

CANNOCK CHASE COALFIELD (REORGANISATION).

Mr. MANDER: 2.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission have yet been able to prepare their scheme for the Cannock Chase coalfield; and what the present position is?

Mr. E. BROWN: I am informed by the Commission that at present there is nothing to add to the information given on pages 10 and 11 of their recently published Report.

Mr. MANDER: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Commission obtained all the information they desired in connection with this matter?

Mr. BROWN: That is a separate question, and, if the hon. Member will put it down, I will try to get the information.

Mr. DICKIE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in the new legislation announced to-day, any provision will be made in order that the nation may get some return from the expenditure which has been incurred?

Mr. BROWN: The Bill refers to Part I and not to Part II of the Act.

MONTAGUE MAIN COLLIERY (PROSECUTION).

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: 6.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he can make any statement on the recent prosecution regarding illegal overtime at the Montague Main Colliery?

Mr. BROWN: At the instance of my Department, legal proceedings were taken against the manager and under-manager of the Caroline Pit. Montague Main Colliery, in respect of a number of contraventions of the Coal Mines Act, 1908. The charges related to the illegal working of overtime and to failures to make proper entries in the overtime register. Both defendants pleaded "guilty" to all the charges, and fines and costs amounting altogether to £47 10s. were imposed.

STATISTICS.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 7.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of boys
under 16 years and under 21 years, respectively, employed in the mining industry in 1923 and 1933, respectively, with the percentages of the total number of men employed represented by these figures?

Number of Boys employed in the Coal Mining Industry.






Under 16 years of age.
Over 16 and under 21 years of age.


Period.
Number.
Proportion of Total Number employed.
Number.
Proportion of Total Number employed.







Per cent.

Per cent.


1923
…
…
…
66,249
5.5
Not available.


December, 1925
…
…
…
50,777
4.7
129,716
11.9


December, 1932
…
…
…
25,914
3.3
94,801
11.9


December, 1933
…
…
…
Not yet available.

PITPROPS.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 8.
asked the Secretary for Mines the quantity of pitwood and of steel for roof support in mines for 1929 and 1933, with the tonnage of coal raised in the same years?

Mr. BROWN: The output of saleable coal in Great Britain in 1929 was 257.9 million tons, and in 1933 207 million tons. Particulars of the quantities of pitwood and of steel for roof supports used in mines are not available, but as regards pitwood, the industry is mainly dependent on imported supplies, which were 2,692,506 loads in 1929 and 1,944,000 loads in 1933.

Mr. GRENFELL: Has the hon. Gentleman been able to base any conclusion upon that information, regarding the relative safety of wood and steel props?

Mr. BROWN: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to put that question down. I could give a lot of information, but general conclusions are another issue.

STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA (SHAREHOLDERS' INCOME TAX).

Mr. GLOSSOP: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominions Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of South Africa in regard to Dominion Income Tax relief for 1933–34 in respect of shareholders in this country of the Standard Bank of South Africa, Limited?

Mr. BROWN: As the reply involves a statistical statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT such information as is available.

Following is the information:

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): If my hon. Friend will send me a letter explaining the circumstances more fully, I will look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Major PROCTER: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the progress made in carrying out the wishes of the Lancashire cotton delegation and the Indian Government for the increased use of Indian cotton; whether he will consider the advisability of granting a bounty to encourage its use; and whether he will take steps to have established in Manchester a spot market for Indian raw cotton?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The committee set up in Lancashire following the Ottawa Conference to promote the greater use of Indian cotton in this country has already, by the appointment of a Cotton Commissioner to act in India as liaison officer between the Indian raw cotton interests and the Lancashire spinners, commenced action on the lines recommended by the recent United Kingdom textile delegation to India. I do not think a bounty to encourage the use of Indian cotton is desirable. As regards the last part of the question, I
would point out that there has been available a spot market for Indian cotton in Manchester for several years past.

Major PROCTER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are very great difficulties in purchasing Indian cotton in Lancashire to-day?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, but those difficulties have already been mentioned.

Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility whereby future markets for Indian cotton, which is the more important point, can be set up?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think the Lancashire cotton trade is quite capable of doing that itself.

Mr. CROSSLEY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many mills that would like to use Indian cotton need some adaptation of their machinery in order to be able to do so, and how would he help that adaptation?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I know there are some mills in which the adaptation has already taken place without Government assistance.

Mr. REMER: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the negotiations with the Japanese delegates on cotton and rayon have yet commenced; and, if not, when they will commence?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The discussions between the representatives of the United Kingdom and Japanese cotton and rayon industries will begin to-morrow.

Mr. REMER: If I put a question down for Thursday, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give information to the House as to what progress has been made?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, I think it would be a most indiscreet thing to do.

Major PROCTER: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the project for the importation of Indian raw cotton to be paid for by the export of cotton piece-goods made from Indian cotton; and whether his Department will be prepared to give active encouragement to such reciprocal trading between Lancashire and India?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that a proposal on the lines indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend has been made to the Lancashire Indian Cotton Committee, and has been under consideration by that committee in the course of their work in relation to the use of Indian cotton in Lancashire. It would be premature to express any opinion on the matter in advance of consideration by the Committee.

Major PROCTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 3,000 bales of Indian cotton are on the high seas to be made up into Lancashire piece goods and sent back to India; and will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Government proposes to put into operation effective measures to carry out the wishes of the Lancashire Cotton Delegation and the Indian Government to increase the use of Indian to offset the Japanese moral claim to a large share of the trade in the Indian market based on her huge purchases of Indian raw cotton?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no reason to doubt the assiduity with which the committee are proceeding with their work.

HERRING INDUSTRY.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade in which of the trade negotiations which are now current the question of obtaining concessions with regard to the import of British herring is being raised?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Endeavours are being made to assist the British herring industry in connection with all the negotiations now in progress.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication as to how the herring industry will be affected?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope, for their good.

Captain JAMES MacANDREW: When does my right hon. Friend expect the negotiations in regard to the herring industry to be completed?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot make any definite promise, but I hope at a very early date.

WAR MATERIALS (EXPORTS).

Mr. SAVERY: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value, for each of the last two years, of the exports to Japan of munitions of war, both from this country and from the United States of
America?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total declared value of the domestic exports of arms, ammunition, and military and naval stores (excluding sporting arms and ammunition) consigned from the United Kingdom to Japan, including Kwantung, was £317,268 in 1932 and £246,354 in 1933. The domestic exports of firearms, ordnance, and ammunition from the United States to Japan, including Kwantung, were valued at 6,808 dollars in 1932; the corresponding figure for 1933 is not yet available. Any exports of explosives for industrial purposes would be included in these figures.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give details of the quantity and categories of arms, if any, licensed during 1933 for export to France and Germany, respectively?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The only war material licensed during the year for exportation to France consisted of 12,000 7.65 millimetre rifle cartridges, 150,000 13.2 millimetre machine gun cartridges, and 1,150 internal night tracers. No licences were issued for the exportation of war material to Germany, the importation of such material into that country being prohibited.

SHIPPING INDUSTRY.

Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the recommendations addressed to him from the Council of the Chamber of Shipping; and when he proposes to take action to help the mercantile marine?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers which were given to the hon. Member for Salford South (Mr. Stourton) on the 29th January and to the hon. and gallant Member for Paddington South (Vice-Admiral Taylor) on the 30th January.

ANGLO-TURKISH TREATY.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is in a position to make a statement with regard to the observance of the AngloTurkish Commercial Treaty of 1930 and the effort to secure most-favoured nation treatment for United Kingdom goods?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The whole matter is under active consideration, but I am not in a position at present to add to the replies I have previously given on the subject.

MOST-FAVOURED-NATION CLAUSE.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES: 23 and 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many trade and commercial agreements of this country would be affected by the withdrawal of the most-favoured-nation Clause;
(2) what period of time would be necessary to conclude the operation of the most-favoured-nation Clause in our present trade agreements?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on the 13th November, of which I am sending him a copy. The only change in the position since that date is that the trade agreement with Finland of 29th September, 1933, was ratified on the 20th November, 1933, and entered into force on the 23rd November.

SUEZ CANAL (TRAFFIC).

Mr. PETHERICK: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the net tonnage of ships and of cargo passing through the Suez Canal in 1933?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: According to figures issued by the Suez Canal Company, the net tonnage, Suez Canal measurement, of vessels, with cargoes and in ballast, which passed through the Canal during 1933 was 30,677,000 tons. The weight Of cargo carried cannot yet be stated, but for the first eleven months of 1933 this amounted to 24,123,000 tons.

JAPANESE COMPETITION.

Mr. MANDER: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what action the Government propose to take with reference to the competition of Japanese goods with the products of Wolver-
hampton and Willenhall; and whether they will consider the advisability, in view of the failure of the Japanese Government to adhere to its international obligations, of taking steps to secure a world-wide embargo on the import of Japanese goods?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) on the 28th November.

Mr. MANDER: Does my right hon. Friend feel that it is right that Japan should have a free run in the markets of the world at a time when she is breaking her international obligations?

Mr. REMER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman in view of the momentous issue raised by the question and the source from which it comes, whether he can use his influence with the Prime Minister, so that the hon. Gentleman may recross the Floor of the House?

FRANCE (BRITISH GOODS, QUOTAS).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make any further statement with regard to the possibility of obtaining an agreement with France on the subject of quota cuts in respect of British goods?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend will be aware of the Order under Section 12 of the Import Duties Act which was made on 9th February and was laid before the House. For the rest, I have at present nothing to add to the statements I have previously made on this subject.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is there anything in the statement that the French Government have asked our Government to suspend the operation of these increased duties for the moment?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that I cannot give any further information than has already been communicated to the House.

Mr. COCKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give sympathetic consideration to the suggestion that, as a conciliatory act towards the French Government, he should suspend the operation of these duties, in order to clear the way to negotiations for a general agreement?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will always give sympathetic consideration to any suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman.

MERCHANDISE MARKS ACTS.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many cases have come to his notice during the past three months of failure to designate foreign goods as such; and whether he is satisfied that existing powers are adequate to deal with this matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, the Merchandise Marks Acts do not require all imported goods to bear an indication of origin. During the last three months, eight cases in which there appeared to have been a breach of the statutory requirements were brought to the notice of the Department. In seven cases, the Board have secured from the firm concerned a written undertaking to comply with the law in future, and in the remaining case, the firm concerned are not now in existence. Some further complaints are being investigated. As regards the last part of the question, perhaps my hon. Friend will let me know in what particular direction he thinks that the existing Merchandise Marks legislation needs strengthening.

BRITISH ARMY (REMOUNTS).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 26.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office how many horses were bought by the War Office from the Irish Free State during 1933–34?

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): For the period 1st April, 1933, to 31st January, 1934, the number was 168.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can my hon. and gallant Friend find out from the Financial Secretary if these horses might have been bought in Great Britain, especially in Lincolnshire?

Captain HUDSON: I think that if the hon. and gallant Member waits until the next question he will find some reference to that.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

ILLEGAL, TRAWLING AND SEINING.

Mr. BURNETT: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of con-
victions for breaches of the law which have taken place in Scotland, respectively, for illegal trawling and for illegal seine-net fishing, in the years 1931, 1932 and 1933?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): In 1931 there were 11 convictions for illegal trawling and 17 for illegal seining; in 1932, trawling, 17; seining, 11; in 1933, trawling, 16; seining, 9.

Mr. BOOTHBY: ; Is my hon. Friend aware that the protection against illegal trawling on the North-East coast of Scotland is inadequate, and are the Government taking any steps to give the shore fisherman protection?

Mr. SKELTON: No effort will be left undone to make protection adequate and to suppress illegal trawling.

Mr. BURNETT: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the range and average amount of penalties imposed in the case of illegal trawling and illegal seine-net fishing, respectively, within Scottish waters, for the years 1931, 1932 and 1933?

Mr. SKELTON: I am having a statement prepared, and if my hon. Friend would repeat his question in a week's time, I hope then to be able to give him full information.

MUSK RATS.

Mr. BURNETT: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount of the grant made on the Department of Agriculture Vote, 1932–33, towards a biological investigation of the musk-rat; and why it was decided that the investigation should take place at Oxford University and not at a Scottish university or institute of biological research?

Mr. SKELTON: No provision was made on the Vote of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland for 1932–33, and no expenditure has been incurred by them for the purpose indicated. I understand that expenditure in connection with the biological investigation referred to is met by a grant from the Vote of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Mr. BURNETT: Is it not the case that grants in connection with Oxford University are stated in the Appropriation Accounts?

Mr. SKELTON: That question must not be addressed to me.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: May I ask if any success has attended this special investigation, which is rather important to Scotland?

Mr. SKELTON: That question should be asked of the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. BURNETT: Is it not the case that biological research is specially engaged in in the Scottish Universities, particularly at Aberdeen?

HOUSING.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of State-aided houses erected in Scotland in 1931, 1932 and 1933?

Mr. SKELTON: The number of State-aided houses erected by local authorities and private enterprise in Scotland in 1931, 1932 and 1933 was 10,654, 15,818 and 20,915, respectively.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Does my hon. Friend expect this figure to be exceeded in 1934?

Mr. SKELTON: I think it is too early to say that.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Will the hon. Gentleman be satisfied if the figure is not exceeded in 1934?

Mr. SKELTON: I am always hoping that each year will be better than the last in every matter.

BRACKEN.

Sir IAN MACPHERSON: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the continuing detriment caused to agriculture in Scotland by the prevalence of bracken, which is threatening to over-run large areas of cultivable land; and what steps he proposes to take to assist in overcoming this menace?

Mr. SKELTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, provision of assistance from public funds has recently been made for an investigation into the possibility of improving existing methods of eradication either by cutting by machinery or by spraying with herbicides from the air.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: When is a report likely to be made?

Mr. SKELTON: Investigations are being made, but I cannot say when they will be completed.

FARM WORKERS (WAGES).

Captain McEWEN: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the draft sent to him from the Scottish farm servants union of a scheme for collective bargaining in regard to wages; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. SKELTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My right hon. Friend does not think that there is any action which he can usefully take in the matter at present.

Captain McEWEN: Am I to understand from my hon. Friend that the attitude of his Department is on the whole sympathetic towards this matter?

Mr. SKELTON: So soon as joint proposals are made to us by the two parties concerned, my right hon. Friend will take every step that can possibly be taken to assist the subject under discussion.

Mr. H. STEWART: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that as prosperity comes to the farmers as a result of the marketing schemes there will be a reasonable demand made by farm workers for some share of that, and does he not consider that it is the Government's duty to take steps to see that that sharing actually takes place?

Mr. SKELTON: Up to date in Scotland the wages of farm workers have on the whole, when the situation was good, been a very satisfactory reflection of that situation. I should not be prepared to say, with that historic fact in the background, that it is necessary to take special measures, but we will certainly be most active to take any steps that can bring into being the proposals that are suggested as soon as the two parties have come to some arrangement on the subject.

Mr. THORNE: Do the farmers recognise the Farm Workers Union?

Mr. SKELTON: I should require notice of that question.

Lieut.-Colonel MacANDREW: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the Scottish method is much more satisfactory than the English method?

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS.

Mr. RADFORD: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that unnecessary expense and waste of officials' time is often caused to local authorities by candidates standing in local authority elections who have no chance of being elected; and will he consider legislation to provide that a deposit of £10 shall be made by each candidate, such deposit to be forfeited as in the case of Parliamentary elections, if a candidate fails to poll a certain percentage of votes?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): I am aware of the considerations mentioned by my hon. Friend, but I would call his attention to the provision which has been made in the Local Government Act, 1933, with a view to discouraging frivolous candidatures. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to consider any further legislation on the subject at present.

Mr. RADFORD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that each of these futile elections costs the ratepayers between £100 and £150, and can he give any reason against a small deposit such as is suggested here that does not apply with equal force to the £150 deposit in Parliamentary elections?

Mr. HACKING: The Chelmsford Committee considered this question, and they decided it was better to work along the lines of preventing a candidate from being nominated or from sitting for more than one seat or division. That is the line adopted in the Local Government Act of 1933 which has not had a chance of showing whether it will work satisfactorily. It does not come into operation until June this year and the hon. Member will then be able to see whether it solves the difficulty.

QUARTER SESSIONS (CHAIRMEN).

Mr. LUNN: 35.
asked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been
drawn to paragraph 66 of the second interim Report of the Business of Courts Committee, in which it is stated that 33 out of 65 chairmen of quarter sessions are not trained in the law; and whether the Government propose to take any action in the matter?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): As is indicated in the paragraph to which the hon. Member refers, the justices at Quarter Sessions, with whom the appointment rests, realise the desirability of selecting a chairman or deputy chairman skilled in the law, where circumstances allow such a course. The Committee do not report in favour of any change in the law, and I do not think that any change is at present necessary or advisable.

Mr. LUNN: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman call the attention of Quarter Sessions to the opinion expressed in the report?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think that Quarter Sessions are fully alive to the advantages of having a lawyer.

BRITISH SOMALILAND (ZEILA SALT AREA).

Mr. MAXTON: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Zeila salt area on the coast of British Somaliland, where natural salt is found, has been leased to the French Salt Company at Djibouti, thus depriving British Somalis of the means of livelihood on which they have depended for centuries; whether the French company is to exploit the salt or merely to control it for the purpose of removing competition from its own salt monopoly in Djibouti: and whether any compensation will be offered to the inhabitants of the Zeila district?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I am replying for my right hon. Friend. The suggestion that the salt area at Zeila has been leased to the French Salt Company at Jibuti, thus depriving British Somalis of their means of livelihood, is devoid of any foundation. The facts are that owing to the grant a few years ago by the Ethiopian Government to the French company of a monopoly for the sale of salt in Ethiopia, the salt producers at Zeila were faced
with the necessity of selling their salt in Ethiopia through the monopoly company, or of foregoing their legitimate trade, so far as Ethiopia is concerned. In these circumstances smuggling has been resorted to, but this is unsatisfactory to all concerned, and particularly to the salt producers, who are exploited by the caravan owners and whose salt is liable to confiscation by the Ethiopian authorities. In the circumstances, the company has opened negotiations with the Government of British Somaliland which is endeavouring to conclude an agreement that will safeguard the interests of the Zeila salt producers. The negotiations are still proceeding.

AFFORESTATION AND RAINFALL.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: 36.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he can state the number of acres in England, Wales, and Scotland, respectively, which have been denuded of trees since 1914; whether he has any reliable data to show what effect this has had upon the annual rainfall; and what the result has been?

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): No definite information is available, but it has been estimated that rather less than 450,000 acres of woodland were cut over during and immediately after the War. On the other hand, the Forestry Commissioners have planted approximately 237,000 acres, while the area of private planting is probably equivalent to current fellings. They have no data to show what effect, if any, the fellings have had upon the annual rainfall.

RUMANIA AND BRAZIL (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 39.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a committee of foreign creditors is considering the financial conditions of Rumania; and whether, in order that the Treasury may be informed as to the advisability of allowing loans to be floated again in London by uncreditworthy foreign borrowers, he will arrange to be represented on this committee so as to ascertain whether Great
Britain has benefited on balance after the losses of British investors by the default of Rumanian loans, offered for subscription in London, have been taken into account and set off against the results of the export trade arising from the defaulted obligations of Rumania?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I understand that the Rumanian Government have invited a committee of three financial experts to examine the economic and financial situation of Rumania, and that their report is intended to supply the authoritative information required for the conclusion of an agreement in regard to the Rumanian foreign debt. The negotiation of such an agreement is a matter for the Rumanian Government and the representatives of the bondholders concerned, and I do not think that it would be desirable that a representative of His Majesty's Government should be added to this committee.

Mr. REMER: 40.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that during the past season the State of Rio de Janeiro shipped 725,000 boxes of oranges to three United Kingdom ports and that increased shipments will be made next year; and if he will make arrangements with the Brazilian authorities to ensure that the United Kingdom Customs authorities shall in future collect on the orange shipments to the United Kingdom enough per case to provide service on the defaulted loans made in London to the State of Rio de Janeiro?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed that the shipment of oranges from the State of Rio de Janeiro during the period July to November, 1933, was approximately as stated in the question. I am not in a position to state what shipments will be made next year. My hon. Friend will have observed that the plan for the settlement of Brazilian loans during the period from 1934 to 1938, which was embodied in the decree published on the 8th February, includes loans issued by the State of Rio de Janeiro. I do not consider that it would be practicable to make arrangements on the lines suggested in the second part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

INCOME TAX (RESIDENTS ABROAD).

Mr. BOULTON: 41.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government will take steps with a view to curtailing passport facilities in cases where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Departments concerned that through residence out of the United Kingdom it has not been possible to enforce the payment of Income Tax assessed and legally payable?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the curtailment of passport facilities in the case of British subjects who owe money to the Revenue, and that he would desire steps to be taken to prevent such people from leaving this country or from living abroad if already there. I am afraid it would not be practicable to adopt a proposal of this kind. It probably would not be effective in securing its object, but even if it were it would of necessity involve a restriction in the present period of validity for passports, namely, five years, which could not be confined to the comparatively small number of people at whom the proposal is aimed.

BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY (STATE ASSISTANCE).

Mr. LEONARD: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total cost to the Exchequer in subsidy and rebate of taxation, up to the latest date for which figures are available, of the assistance given to the beet-sugar industry?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total amount of State assistance given to the beet-sugar industry in subsidy and revenue abatement, from 1924 up to the present date, is £39,631,000.

Mr. LEONARD: In view of the fact that there is a draft scheme proposing to give further protection to this industry, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to see that a copy of it is submitted to every Member of this House?

DEATH DUTIES (PENSIONS).

Mr. LUNN: 43.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the approximate cost to the revenue if the law regarding Death Duties were amended to exclude the capital value of
pensions received by widows from superannuation funds from which their husbands received pensions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that the statistics of the capital charged to Death Duties are not kept in sufficient detail to provide a basis for calculating the loss of duty which the suggested amendment would entail.

IMPORT DUTIES (FILMS).

Mr. LECKIE: 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the present duty on imported films is estimated to work out at 8d. per performance only; and whether he will take steps in the forthcoming Budget to secure further revenue from the import of films from foreign countries?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first part of the question I have no information on the point mentioned; as regards the second part, I am sure that the hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate the Budget statement.

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (TAXATION).

Mr. SUMMERSBY: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the loss caused to the distributive trades through the encroachment of co-operative societies into the sphere of private trading; and, in order to prevent the adverse effect which they are calculated to have upon the revenue, if he will, in his forthcoming Budget, include provisions for taxing the whole gross profits of co-operative societies?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that I must decline my hon. Friend's invitation to anticipate the Budget statement.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that an ordinary trading concern may not charge its gifts to hospitals and charities against profits but is taxed on such gifts; and can he state what steps have been taken to ensure that, since the Finance Act, 1933, none of the sums of money spent by the co-operative societies on political propaganda are charged as a business expense but are taxed as part of the profit?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. The question whether any particular sum expended by a trader is deductible in
computing his profits for income tax purposes is governed by the general provisions of the Income Tax Acts, which apply to the assessment of co-operative societies under the Finance Act, 1933, in precisely the same way as to other traders. Rule 3 (a) of the Rules applicable to Cases I and II of Schedule D provides that
no sum shall be deducted in respect of any disbursements or expenses not being money wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade, ….
Under this Rule such of the gifts mentioned by my hon. Friend as represent ordinary subscriptions to local hospitals and charities from which the traders' employés may derive benefit would be regarded as allowable. On the other hand, money spent on political propaganda is not deductible. I have no reason to suppose that co-operative societies are claiming the allowance of such expenditure in the computation of their income tax liabilities. If such a claim were made it would be opposed on behalf of the Revenue by the inspector of taxes in the ordinary exercise of his duty.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: 49.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what would be the loss to the revenue if the entire distributive trade of this country were to be based on co-operative principles?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The revenue statistics do not show the amount of tax derived from the distributive trade. I regret, therefore, that I am not in a position to furnish any estimate of the effects on revenue that might result from such a change.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there would be a loss of revenue?

PETROL DUTY (DRY CLEANING).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received as to the injurious effect of the Petrol Tax on the (garment) dry-cleaning industry; and whether he will consider this matter, and the question of allowing a rebate on the spirit used in the industry, when he is reviewing the tax in connection with his forthcoming Budget?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not recently received any representations in this connection, but I am aware that the matter has been raised on previous occasions. With regard to the second part of the question, all relevant factors are taken into consideration when particular duties are reviewed in connection with the Budget.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (PROCEDURE).

Mr. LEWIS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of making the necessary arrangements to set up an impartial committee of this House to consider all matters relating to time-table Motions in future?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 29th January last in reply to a question on this subject by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank).

Mr. LEWIS: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that one of the principal causes of irritation in the working of these time-table Motions is the feeling by the Opposition of the day that the details are drawn up by the Government and not by any impartial or representative committee; and does he not appreciate that if a committee such as is suggested in the question could find some way of getting over the difficulty it would very much facilitate the working of these time-table Motions in future?

The PRIME MINISTER: I fully recognise the problem which my hon. Friend has stated, but I doubt whether the suggestion he makes for dealing with it, at any rate in the first instance, is a practicable one. It is under consideration.

AUSTRIA.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received from the Austrian Government a statement of the evidence on which their recent complaint to the German Government was based, and whether he can make any statement regarding the present situation in Austria?

The SECRETARY OF STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): The Austrian Minister communicated to me on the 8th February a collection of documents, constituting the material on which the Austrian Government propose to base their appeal to the League of Nations. On the following day I handed to Baron Franckenstein an aide memoire of which I will read the text:
His Majesty's Government note that the Austrian Government have decided in principle to bring the matters of which they complain before the League under Article 11, paragraph 2, of the Covenant.
His Majesty's Government have publicly stated that they do not seek to discourage Austria in bringing this appeal. The integrity and independence of Austria are an object of British policy, and while His Majesty's Government have no intention whatever of interfering in the internal affairs of another country, they fully recognise the right of Austria to demand that there should be no interference with her internal affairs from any other quarter.
On entertaining Austria's appeal, the Council would presumably endeavour to ascertain what Germany may have to say as to the facts alleged, before reaching its recommendations. His Majesty's Government therefore think that the proper course is not to pronounce a view on the Austrian material in advance of its consideration by the Council.
That was in reply to the first part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question. In reply to the second part of the question, Sir Walford Selby, His Majesty's Minister at Vienna, has been informed by the Political Director of the Austrian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, that the sequence of the principal events of yesterday was as follows: The Socialist headquarters at Linz were visited yesterday morning by the police in search of arms. There was armed resistance by members of the Socialist "Schutzbund" and one policeman was shot. The troops then intervened, and martial law was declared at Linz. Following these events, the Socialist party declared a general strike in Vienna, and this was answered by the Government with a declaration of martial law. The town hall was occupied in the evening by regular troops and the Mayor and principal officials were confined to their quarters. Sir Walford Selby also reports that the municipal council has been dissolved and the Minister of Social Welfare has been appointed Federal Commissioner for Vienna. There appears to have been intermittent street fighting with some loss of life, the
extent of which cannot yet be estimated. The streets were in darkness last night—that is, the streets of Vienna—but otherwise essential services had not been interfered with. Martial law has been proclaimed in Carinthia and Styria, and disturbances appear to have taken place in the latter province. The rest of Austria is believed to be quiet.

Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the Austrian Government that any suppression of representative institutions in Austria is not going to help their case with public opinion in this country?

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is for the Austrian citizens to decide between the Austrians and the Germans, now that the Austrians are doing the same thing that the Germans did?

Mr. MAXTON: May I ask if and when the League of Nations will be able to discuss the difficulties of Austria?

Sir J. SIMON: I believe the situation is that, though the Austrian Government have decided in principle to present their appeal to the League, it was left to Dr. Dolfuss to decide at what moment that should be done. As soon as that appeal is presented, I apprehend that there will be a special meeting of the Council.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the League take no notice of these disturbing events unless the matter is brought before them by Dr. Dolfuss?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not at the moment see how the League could of its own motion enter upon the matter of a dispute under an Article which gives to Austria the friendly right, to raise such questions, if Austria wishes to do so, as she says she does.

Mr. MAXTON: Is there not something, if not in that Article then in some other Article, which gives the League a certain responsibility where conditions in one nation are threatening the peace of Europe?

Sir J. SIMON: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. LAWSON: Will the Government make their support of Austria in the League of Nations Council dependent
upon decent treatment of that Government's own citizens?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman get for us any information as to the whereabouts of ex-Chancellor Renner, Mayor Seitz, and Herr Bauer, about whose fate the "Times" newspaper seems to be in doubt?

Sir J. SIMON: I have already asked for information, and I cannot give any answer to that question at present.

Mr. HICKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether there was a number of provocative incidents towards the trade unions and co-operative societies—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: I have some doubt in my mind as to whether a question dealing with the policy of another country is in order. It may be, if it only asks for information, but it certainly cannot be debated.

UNEMPLOYMENT BILL (TIME-TABLE).

Mr. ATTLEE (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware, that in Committee on the Unemployment Bill, out of 19 Clauses already disposed of, eight Clauses, most of them affecting very materially the structure of the Bill, have been passed without debate; and whether, in view of the importance of this Measure and of the fact that it vitally affects large numbers of people in every constituency, steps will be taken to ensure the proper consideration of all its Clauses, and a definite pronouncement made on this matter before the resumption of the Committee stage next week?
May I say that in asking this question I am not pressing the Prime Minister for an immediate answer? I understand that there was some difficulty in the usual channels, and that he has only recently received the question. Moreover, he also replied on the subject last night. Perhaps, therefore, I might ask him for a reply in the course of a week, when he has had an opportunity of considering the matter.

The PRIME MINISTER: It is quite true that I have had an unusually short notice for a question of the importance of this one, but I am prepared to answer it.
The principles of the Bill did of course receive very full consideration in the three days which were devoted to the Second Reading of the Bill, and the financial aspect received consideration in the Debate on the Money Resolution, which occupied a little over a day and a-half. I regret the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and can only repeat what I have stated several times, that, when the Committee stage is concluded, the Government will provide such time on Report stage as will ensure discussion of the really important points which have not been adequately dealt with in Committee. It is the Government's intention, when the time comes to allot the number of days which can be given to the Report stage, to consult the Opposition parties and representatives of supporters of the Government so as to work out a time-table in the most convenient form for the House as a whole.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the feeling, which is very widely distributed throughout the House, that some of these Clauses especially needed to be discussed in Committee, he will not consider the possibility of recommitting certain of the Clauses, particularly the financial Clauses, which cannot be discussed fully on Report? In view of the fact that it was the omission of the important Committee stage that impressed Members yesterday, and that a mere discussion on Report does not get over the difficulty, could not the right hon. Gentleman, before we resume the discussion of the Bill again next week, consider whether it is possible to make a statement with regard to recommitting certain of the important Clauses?

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: I should like to reinforce that suggestion, and to ask the Prime Minister whether he would not specially consider recommitting the Bill for the consideration of the very important Clause 18?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the House will agree with me that any statement definitely pledging the Government
to any method of procedure in the matter at this moment would be quite premature; but I would say to the House that all the suggestions that have been made to facilitate business, and to carry the assent of the whole House on the business that has been done, will be considered by the Government before they take into consideration what is to be done on the Report stage.

Mr. MAXTON: The possibility of
recommittal is not excluded?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I really must confine myself to what I have already said.

Mr. LAWSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he really understands that Clauses 17 and 18 are practically the heart of the Bill as far as Part I is concerned, and that he is not at all meeting us in this matter if he is merely depending on the Report stage? That will not do at all; the House wants an opportunity of discussing the principle of the Clauses.

Mr. BOOTH BY: In view of the fact that it is not possible to discuss Clause 18 in full on Report, would the Prime Minister undertake to give special consideration to the question of the possible recommittal of this particular Clause, in order to give the House an opportunity of considering it? It involves £115,000,000.

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

The PRIME MINISTER: Really, I have answered. I have nothing to add to what I have said.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister if there is any alteration in the business for Thursday?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir; an alteration is proposed in Thursday's business. In addition to the Motions to approve the Cattle (Import Regulation) Order and the Additional Import Duties Orders Nos. 1 and 23, it is proposed to take the Import Duties (Foreign Discrimination) Order. The Motion to approve the Amendments to the Hops Marketing Scheme will, in consequence, be postponed.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee (6th Allotted Day).

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 20.—(Duty of Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee as to insurance of persons employed in agriculture.)

Miss RATHBONE: I beg to move, in page 19, line 38, after "agriculture," to insert:
and of persons whose salaries exceed two hundred and fifty pounds per annum.
When I was called upon last night, five minutes before the Adjournment, the House was in the kind of conversazione which always takes place in the Chamber at about a quarter to Eleven, and I am afraid that very few Members present were able to hear what I was saying. I will not repeat myself beyond saying briefly that this Amendment, which stands in the names of myself and a number of other University representatives, has for its object the taking of the only step which appears to be immediately practicable to move persons who have been earning salaries of over £250 within the scope of the Bill. The strait waist-coat in which the Financial Resolution restricts the powers under the Bill debars us, I understand, from attempting to move persons of this kind directly within unemployment insurance, and it also debars us from trying to remove the still more glaring anomaly which prevents persons earning over £250 a year from applying to the Unemployment Insurance Board if they should be so unfortunate as to require assistance from public funds; but it is within the power of the Government to do both of these things by recommitting the Bill, and I would urge them at least to do the latter. There may be controversy as to the desirability of bringing persons of this class within compulsory insurance, but, while there is some doubt as to whether the professional or executive officer class themselves desire compulsory insurance, there can, I think, be no difference of opinion as to the grave injustice of excluding them from the operations of the new body that is to be set up under Part II of the Bill,
and leaving them, if they should require assistance, to the operation of the Poor Law. If the Poor Law is not good enough for the agricultural labourer, it is not good enough for the university graduate, the professional man or the executive officer class.
When I first saw how my own constituents, men and women belonging to the professional occupations and chiefly recruited from them, were treated under the Bill I saw red. I could hardly believe that I had read the Bill aright. It is astonishing that this matter has attracted so little public attention. The explanation is obvious. It is that there is relatively a very small number of educated unemployed persons who are in such straits that they are compelled to apply for assistance to public funds. I do not say that educated unemployed people themselves are few in number. Unfortunately, there are no ways of measuring the number, but I believe that if the truth were known it would be found that there are far more of them than is generally suspected. Undoubtedly the great majority of them manage to keep their heads above water by the aid of savings and family assistance, and they do not have to apply either for charity or public aid, but there is a certain number who, either from bad luck or ill health or heavy family claims and the like and lack of well-to-do relatives, are brought actually to destitution by unemployment.
May I mention three cases? One is that of a Manchester graduate who served right through the War, distinguished himself at Manchester University and took an honours degree, and he now writes that he has been for 2½ years out of employment. He has written over 500 letters to private employers and has answered double that number of advertisements, scarcely ever so much as getting a reply. He adds, "You cannot conceive the depth of misery to which those unavailing efforts have brought one." Another case is that of a Cambridge graduate, a commissioned officer throughout the War, who then held a post of great importance in one of the Dominions and returned home and put all his savings into a school. It failed utterly and now his family are left destitute. The third is the case of a man educated at a Scottish secondary school who for many
years was a bank manager in one of our Colonies, earning at one time £1,500, and now a friend who knows him personally writes that he and his wife and four children are down and out, on the rocks, literally starving. It is pitiful to witness the misery shown in their faces. They look almost demented.
Two-thirds of my constituents began their education in elementary schools. That is an indication that they are not men and women with wealthy families behind them. Largely through their own exceptional ability and industry and the sacrifice of their parents, they have raised themselves to a position in which they are able to earn more than £250 a year. It is contrary to all common sense and justice that, when owing to this long continued economic depression they are thrown out of work there should be no resource for them but the Poor Law and that they should be utterly ignored under this Bill, just because they have been more successful than some of their comrades and reached a relatively high salary. Why should it be so? Is it simply because they are relatively few? Is it because they have not a trade union with several million members behind them? I cannot help thinking that the small attention that has been paid to their case is due to the fact that these people are thought to be of little political importance, but it is not good to leave men and women of that sort profoundly discontented, labouring under a deep sense of injustice.
My Amendment does not propose to set any limit of income. I am aware that the Unemployment Insurance Commission recommended that insurance should be extended up to the income limit of £350, and there is a later Amendment proposing an income limit of £500, but there is really no reason for an income limit. It will be a matter for the Statutory Committee to decide if it brings forward proposals. I suggest that an income limit would be troublesome to work. The better off these salaried persons are, the better they can afford contributions and the less likely they are to make claims for benefit. Therefore, they will be a positive asset and will not be a heavy drain on the assistance boards if they are brought within them. As the Commission pointed out, there are objections to an income limit, because those round
about the border line change. Sometimes a man gets a rise which raises him above £250, when he loses the benefit of his previous contributions. Then he may have a cut in salary or may have to take a lower paid job and falls below the limit and has to start over again. It will do no harm if we Members of Parliament have to buy our 1s. 1d. or 11d. stamp. The 15s. or 13s. a week benefit might come in useful to some of us.
There is a very considerable case for the Statutory Committee considering whether these persons should not be put into separate classes with benefits and contributions higher than the general range of contributors, the Exchequer contribution being, of course, the same for everyone, in order that there may be some relation between contributions and benefits and the standard of life. I should like to see the principle of graded contributions and graded benefits extended to all classes of contributors, as is done in other European countries which have developed the system of unemployment insurance. I appeal to the Government not only to accept this very modest Amendment but to go further and see whether, by recommitting the Financial Resolution, they cannot do justly by this class of people both under Part I and Part II of the Bill. Sometimes one thinks that Members of this House forget that the fact that disability and injustice and suffering only affect a few persons is no reason for ignoring it. Suffering is always individual. There cannot be any suffering greater than the suffering of one mind, one body and one heart, but that is no reason why the suffering of these men and women should be ignored.

3.50 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: Before we go on with the Debate, I should like to deal with a question with which I have been asked to try and deal with a view to economising the time available for the Committee on this and the following Amendments. Following this will come an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) and others with a view to setting up machinery for the bringing into Employment Insurance of share fishermen, and that will be followed by one in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) deal-
ing in a similar way with domestic servants. There is, of course, a common principle concerned in regard to all these Amendments although the classes are different. The class dealt with in the Amendment now before the Committee is most commonly known as black-coated workers, and this will be followed by similar questions relating to share fishermen and domestic servants. Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the Committee in general to discuss on this Amendment the provisions of the following Amendments dealing with share fishermen and domestic servants, and then only to take a Division, if required, on the following Amendments. That, of course, can be done with the general assent of the Committee.

3.52 p.m.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: I wish to support the hon. Lady in this Amendment. University Members are aware of a large number of very serious cases covered by the Amendment. They arise out of a rather curious state of circumstances which probably the Committee have not quite realised. Since the War a large number of members of the Universities have come into residence from poor homes, and, assisted by charity, their numbers have very greatly increased. In fact, at Cambridge it reaches a total of very nearly half the University. These young men have very poor homes, but they go on. When I say that in one of my colleges I know of two boys who are going through their university course, having come from homes maintained on unemployment relief, hon. Members will see the sort of cases that we have in mind. These boys will naturally take their degrees in due course, and when they take their degrees they will very likely get black-coated employment in offices and such like occupations and perhaps have a salary of more than £250 a year. When these men get out of employment, as large numbers of them do, they have not the well-to-do homes, as was the case with the old university student, to which to return and obtain assistance. They have to face a state of absolute destitution. The Amendment asks that the Unemployment Statutory Committee should be asked to look into the matter and to report, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will see his way to accept it.

3.54 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: May I say a few further words to the Committee following upon what I said just now? Obviously, if we are to adopt the course proposed it will be for the convenience of the Committee generally that the Chair should first of all call upon hon. Members to speak in the discussion who are interested in the black-coated workers, and then pass on to call those interested in the share fisherman, and afterwards those interested in domestic servants. I need only say that it will of necessity assist the Chair and facilitate debate if when Members are called upon to speak on one of the later Amendments they will regard the Debate on the earlier Amendments to some extent as being closed.

Mr. LAWSON: I believe that the proposal which you have made will have unanimous acceptance among the Committee and that it will give an opportunity to discuss this principle in a general way and the movers of the Amendments an opportunity to put their respective views. The proposal has been accepted so unanimously that I feel sure that it will be honoured.

The CHAIRMAN: I merely ask that those who wish to speak with regard to share fishermen or to domestic servants should not rise in their places until after I have called the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth and that those who are interested in domestic servants should not rise until after I have called the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: Will you make clear, Sir Dennis, what you mean when you say that you will call those interested in black-coated workers. Do you mean those whose names are down to the Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: That is what I mean, and I shall know, if hon. Members rise before I call upon the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth, that they have done so because they want to speak on the question of black coated workers.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I wish to support the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), and, in view of the general desire
for economy of time, I will compress my remarks into a very small compass. It is true that neither my name nor the names of my hon. Friends are among the names to this Amendment or to the other Amendments mentioned, but we have Amendments down which, if not exactly the same in scope, are, at all events, seeking to achieve the some objects as the Amendment of the hon. Lady. The Amendment is one which will receive the sympathetic consideration of the whole Committee, and it will no doubt be the wish of the Committee that the matter should be referred to the Statutory Committee for consideration. The hon. Lady expressed some doubt as to how widespread was the desire among the higher salaried workers for an Amendment of this kind for the purpose of including them within this scheme. The demand for it is somewhat wider than the hon. Lady seems to think. Certainly all those organisations which are concerned to represent the professional classes and the black-coated workers are in favour of the consideration of this matter by the Committee, and, indeed, would go further and ask to be included in the scheme or brought within the scope of Part TI of the Bill.
Judging from the correspondence which has reached me from all parts of the country since the Amendments have appeared on the Paper, I have little doubt that there is a very widespread desire indeed for treatment of this kind for these people who are in misfortune. It is only natural that there should be. A few years ago things were different, but now, owing to trade depression, accentuated by amalgamation of businesses, which is such a feature in our modern organisation, and also the mechanisation of office practice, not only has the volume of unemployment among the black-coated workers been very much increased but it has tended to be very much more aggravated. After a long period of unemployment it becomes increasingly difficult to find work in other directions, and it is exceedingly difficult for these men to find work in a reasonable time.
I take encouragement in this matter when I refer to the fact that the importance of this proposal was recognised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in one of his speeches on the Second Reading
of the Bill. He admitted that there was a strong argument in favour of the inclusion of this type of worker within insurance, and went on to point out that there were certain consequential difficulties of an administrative character which might arise, especially in relation to health insurance and in connection with pensionable rights. But if there are difficulties—and it would be idle to say that there are none—they are not a reason for not submitting these cases to the committee for their consideration, but rather a reason for submitting them as quickly as possible, in order that the matter may be thoroughly explored, and justice may be done where it is badly needed. It is perhaps apt to be overlooked that those who work in an office and wear a black coat, belong just as much to an industrial organisation as those who are carrying out process work in the factories. They are just as essential to the conduct of the industry as those in manual work. I have no wish to add to the list of hard cases quoted by the hon. Lady. I imagine that it is the experience of everyone of us to hear of cases which are heartrending in their character. In the majority of these cases there are social obligations, which, although they are an unwritten law, are nevertheless effective. I think that these cases call for as much sympathy as any others, and therefore, I hope sincerely that the Government will accept this Amendment, and give some assurance which will afford relief, and do justice to a class which is deserving of it.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: The hon. Member who has just spoken has given very conclusive reasons why the Statutory Committee should consider and report upon this problem, and I need not add, in confirmation, any words to the argument that he has used on the general case. I want merely to refer to a special case which has been brought to my attention—the case of musicians working in orchestras, theatres and such places. They are ruled out of Unemployment Insurance and Health Insurance, although their wages are often a good deal less than £250, because their wages are deemed to be higher than that, as their hours are short, and also because they are deemed not to be manual workers.
I really do not know why a musician in an orchestra should be deemed not to be a manual worker if he wants to be. I
do not know if my right hon. Friend has passed the time in playing the violin, or piano, or even the flute. If he has done so, he will find that these pastimes need manual dexterity at least equal to that of a mechanic, and I should have thought that musicians had every right to be deemed to be manual workers. Anyhow, the limit of salary is particularly hard on them, because a very normal wage for that class is worker is, I understand, something between £3 and £3 10s. per week. Although their hours are, perhaps, only 24 to 30 during the week, they cannot spend their leisure hours gainfully in any other way. For their 30-hour week they get, perhaps, £160 to £180 a year, and surely those people should be deemed not to have an income in excess of £250 when the facts are all against it. A case of that kind, I submit, is one which the Statutory Committee should reasonably look into and report upon. Because I hope that the Minister will encourage them to do so, I ask him favourably to consider this case.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: One cannot discuss one section of workers without having regard to the whole field of insurance, and I have felt all along that there was a great deal of selfishness in this approach to the question. There are to-day certain sections of working people who, because of the alteration in economic circumstances, now come along and ask to be brought in, and I confess that this Amendment raises the whole question of bringing within the insurance field and scope of this Bill every section of the community. You cannot go on exempting railwaymen, and, at the same time, demand that these other people should be brought in. To-day the issue arises of covering every field by insurance as a whole. The point here is that of the black-coated workers, as they are familiarly called. While I think there is still for the doctor, teacher and clergyman a fairly regular continuity of employment, the real tragedy—and I speak with some knowledge of Scotland and the universities there—is with regard to those who have been to the universities and are never placed. We have in Scotland a tradition, which is still fairly highly honoured, of very poor people sending their sons and daughters to the great universities in order that they may give
them a better chance than their parents had. One of the tragedies is that these poor people—frequently miners, labourers or those belonging to the engineering trade, earning a very insufficient wage—save and stint themselves in order to maintain certain members of their family at the university, and when they have finished, they find that the great public authorities who employ the school teachers in Scotland have no vacancies for those men and women.
I speak only for those places I know best, but to-day one of the tragedies is that of women who have taken the degree of Master of Arts, or Bachelor of Science, pleading to become temporary clerks in the Employment Exchange. The same applies to the men who have finished, and find it impossible to be placed as doctors. The result is that they have nothing to keep them during the most awful period, perhaps, of their career. It is not so important, in my view, although I do not say it is not important, for the doctor who has been established for a number of years. But it is vitally important for the young man who has been through the university, and I think that in any scheme which is brought in—and I hope that a scheme will be brought in—these people attending the university, and keeping out of the labour market, ought to be credited with stamps for the time they attend the university. I say to the people who control the fund that that is one of the best things that could be done.
One hears constantly in this House that we want people, not on unemployment benefit but in work. It is a commonplace phrase. I have little patience with it, but it is said every day in the week here. Everyone who keeps a son out of the labour market at 14, 15 or 16 years of age, and from the terrible competition, ought to be encouraged and recompensed for so doing. We are constantly punishing decent people. Under the Anomalies Act, if a man deserts his wife, the wife is treated better than if the man lives with her in decency. Encouragement should be given to these people who are trying to do the right and decent thing. The present system is miscalled insurance. Every working person, whether he be a doctor, Member of Parliament, or railwayman, should be included within the four walls of this
scheme, each contributing their quota to it. The present scheme has never been an insurance scheme. Anything which exempts good lives and leaves in the bad ones is not insurance. Everything should be revised. Certain people in municipalities who are within the income limit are exempted because they have a superannuation scheme. I say that those people are good lives, and ought not to be allowed to contract-out. They have a duty to the insurance fund just as much as the regularly employed bricklayer or miner. Nobody because they happen to be privileged should be allowed to contract-out. All should take their equal share, and I trust that this Amendment, limited as it is, will be carried, and that every section of workers will be brought within the field of insurance.

4.13 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I would venture to make an appeal to the Committee on this matter. We have still to get through 14 Clauses before 7.30. Some of them raise quite important points of principle, and the point of this Amendment and the succeeding Amendments is really a narrow one. It is not whether or not black-coated workers should be included in the scheme, or whether share fishermen should be included, or whether domestic servants should be included. None of those three classes can possibly be included in the scheme under the Bill any more than agricultural workers, and if it were desired to include those classes, it would be necessary to have a new Measure altogether.

Miss RATHBONE: Could it not be done by recommitting the Financial Resolution?

Mr. HUDSON: No; it would be necessary to have an entirely new Bill. Therefore, the point which we are discussing this afternoon is the very narrow one of whether or not this House desires to lay on the Advisory Committee the statutory duty of considering immediately whether they can produce practicable proposals for these three classes. This Statutory Committee is being set up by my right hon. Friend advisedly in order to fulfil the sort of duties that hon. Members desire to see them do. We are concerned more particularly to-night to see that the
very valuable time of the committee should not be mortgaged unduly at the very beginning of its existence. The committee will have to review the whole finance of the scheme and see whether or not any alteration should be made in the rates of contribution, or the rates of benefit, or the statutory conditions for the receipt of benefit. Clause 20 also lays on the committee the duty of considering impartially whether any practicable proposals for an insurance scheme for agriculture can be drawn up. In addition to that, my right hon. Friend, at an earlier stage of the Debates, promised that he would refer to the Statutory Committee certain issues arising out of the operation of the Anomalies Act. It is impossible to-day to foresee exactly what other important problems will arise on which we shall require the considered opinion of the committee shortly after its appointment.
As regards the three classes we are discussing this afternoon, they stand in a rather different position from agriculture. Agriculture and the other three classes were all considered in great detail and with great care for a long period of time by the Royal Commission, who received a great deal of evidence on the subject. In the case of agriculture the Royal Commission definitely recommended the course that has been roughly followed in the Bill, namely, that of asking the committee to see whether they can devise a means of getting round the difficulties to which my right hon. Friend referred last night in dealing with the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). In the case of the other three occupations which we are discussing this afternoon the Royal Commission said that they ought not to be included in an insurance scheme at all. Therefore, without expressing any considered view as to whether the Royal Commission was right or not, there is a prima facie case against the inclusion of these three occupations, whereas in the case of agriculture there is a prima facie case that it should be considered immediately by the Statutory Committee.
My right hon. Friend has no intention of opposing his mind to the three particular cases. Indeed, the plea made by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) and the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J.
Withers) was very powerful and, in due course, no doubt the Statutory Committee will be asked whether there is any means of carrying out the suggestion of the hon. Members. The same thing applies to the cases of the share fishermen and domestic servants, but to impose upon the Advisory Committee the statutory duty of considering at once those three cases when the Royal Commission have said that they are not suitable for inclusion in the scheme, would not be possible. For these reasons, I hope that hon. Members will not press the Amendment, and I appeal to other hon. Members to allow us to get away from these particular Amendments to the remaining Clauses with which we have to deal.

Miss RATHBONE: How does the hon. Member reconcile his statement that the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance advised against the insurance of black-coated workers, when they say in their report:
After reviewing the evidence, we consider that, so far as unemployment insurance is concerned, it is desirable on general grounds to raise the income limit to £350.

Mr. HUDSON: Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to finish the quotation:
There are, however, administrative advantages in maintaining the same income limit for Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance, and we are of opinion that the income limit for Unemployment Insurance should not be raised unless and until the income limit for Health Insurance is raised, and that the two schemes should so far as is practicable be co-terminus.
It is precisely because the Statutory Committee will have no jurisdiction over the matter of health insurance that, apart from the question of mortgaging their time, it would be wholly undesirable that we should impose upon them the task of considering an alien subject, namely, health insurance.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. BOOTHBY: The subject raised by the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) and also by the Parliamentary Secretary deals with a matter of vital importance, namely, how far the system of unemployment insurance can be extended, or ought to be extended. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that that is not a question which the House ought to part from without a few
moments consideration. The Parliamentary Secretary made it fairly plain that no considerable extensions are practicable under the present Bill, and I think he was perfectly correct, but at the same time I would point out that there is a great deal to be said in favour of the argument that if you confine the scheme of contributions to bad lives you will never make a satisfactory insurance scheme, however much you may alter it and tinker with it. Our experience during the last ten years goes a long way to prove that fact. In this Bill, we are confining unemployment insurance to bad lives, and we are saddling the fund with a considerable debt. In the long run, whether by a modification of this Bill or by another Measure, the Government will be compelled, or some Government will be compelled, widely to extend all of the categories of the people insured, so as to cover the good lives as well as the bad lives. The principle will ultimately have to be accepted by the people of this country that every man in employment will have to make a contribution to unemployment insurance according to the amount of his salary or remuneration, and benefits will ultimately have to be paid in accordance with the contributions that have been paid. Then we may get a really satisfactory insurance scheme. At this particular moment I should like to deal with the specific question of share fishermen.

Mr. PETHERICK: On a point of Order. I was under the impression that we were not to discuss share fishermen until the Debate on previous Amendment had been exhausted.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I understood the Ruling to be that we were to discuss all these three classes simultaneously.

The CHAIRMAN: We can only do that with the assistance and general good will of the Committee. We have been discussing a question of principle, that of bringing in some other classes into Unemployment Insurance, and the idea was that we should not discuss the question of share fishermen until we had made up our minds that no one else desired to speak about the black-coated worker. Hon. Members must bear in mind that they can speak a second time in this Debate in Committee.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I feel very strongly the necessity of saying a word or two about share fishermen.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can do so later, his name is down to an Amendment on that subject. I can call the hon. Member more than once.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I have no intention of speaking more than once.

4.26 p.m.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I do not want to speak on the subject of share fishermen. I agree with the remark made by the Parliamentary Secretary, that the Statutory Committee has enough work to do already and that it would be inadvisable to ask them not only to inquire into the question whether agricultural workers should be brought into the insurance scheme but whether anyone, without income limit, should be included. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the Minister of Labour could, if he liked, later on, ask the Committee to go into the question raised by this Amendment. I am not certain whether the Minister has the power in the Bill to ask the Committee to inquire whether certain other classes should be included in the insurance scheme, but, if he has such power, I am satisfied to leave it at that. I should like to know under which Clause he has the opportunity of asking the Committee to give that advice.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): Clause 19 (5).

4.27 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I am not going to keep the Committee, because we want to get on with the other Amendments, but we ought not to part with this important question before we have a promise from the Government that they will immediately go into this matter with a view to preparing a Bill. I agree that perhaps it would be unwise to add to the labours of the Statutory Committee immediately and that this is not the sort of work that they can properly do at this stage. Nevertheless, this is the only opportunity we have of discussing the matter and we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary to give us stronger assurances of their intentions sympathetically to consider the matter than we have had up to now. The party to which I have the honour to belong is
no less interested in the black-coated workers than any other party. We are deeply interested in them, and I would like to point out that the treatment now being accorded to black-coated workers is the direct consequence of attempting to deal with unemployment by means of insurance. The scheme which was presented to the Royal Commission by the General Council of the Trades Union Congress would deal amply with the black-coated workers, because it would base the contribution upon income and not upon the basis of so much per head of the population. In that way the black-coated workers would be within the scheme. Therefore, we have made proposals to the Government to deal with this problem.
Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will consult with the Minister of Health, for we understand that the obstacle in the way is not the Minister of Labour but the Minister of Health, who is not here at the moment? We are not inclined to allow this business to remain where it is. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Health to consult with him with a view to preparing a Bill and bring it before the House at the earliest opportunity, in order to reconcile National Health Insurance schemes and Unemployment Insurance schemes? Unless he gives an assurance of that kind the Debate will continue, because the same principle is involved in other Amendments relating to share fishermen and domestic servants. We shall then find ourselves in precisely the same difficulty and shall have speeches about them. Hon. Members feel very keenly on this subject. We are entitled to have a little warmer assurance from the Front Bench than we have had so far, although I agree that the Parliamentary Secretary has adequately answered the point before the Committee, but only by saying we have no power at the moment to discuss a major issue. When are we going to have a chance of discussing a major issue on the Bill?

4.30 p.m.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Thank goodness I can make my point in about two minutes. The Parliamentary Secretary has made certain statements in which I am not entirely in accord with him. I think the Statutory Committee
will thank him for what he has said, because he is trying to lighten its work. I have not the same sympathy, because I do not care a rap whether they work overtime or not. In Lancashire, and especially in my constituency, there are hundreds and thousands of these black-coated men who with the best will in the world cannot possibly get a job, and I wish to enphasise the necessity for the Statutory Committee to go into the question of how they can arrange some plan that can be brought before the House, so that we can manage to bring in some sort of legislation that will put such men within the sphere of insurance. They are what insurance people would call good lives as a rule and would make excellent contributors to the scheme, so that in the long run it might be a very good investment.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: The Committee accepts the grounds as stated by the Parliamentary Secretary for thinking that this matter cannot be dealt with at this moment, but it is a matter which ought to be investigated as soon as possible. It refers to a terrible problem which is to be met with all over the country. There cannot be a constituency in the country where there are not persons who come within the category the Committee is asked to consider. The better class of artisan and craftsman, the small professional man, the middle-class man in all sorts of occupations are all asking us to consider the precariousness of their present position, and the need that they should be supplied with some sort of assistance if they fall out of employment. My right hon. Friend and I come from an area in the Midlands where there are thousands. In his own constituency there must be many cases of this sort, and in the City of Nottingham I know many where a great benefit not only to individuals but to the State would be provided by giving a helping hand to these people when they fall out of employment. I realise that this new Statutory Committee has many duties. It has to survey the whole of these complicated matters and all kinds of complicated questions are coming up, so that at an early stage it would be unreasonable to put this duty on to the Statutory Committee, but here is a problem which
is arising in every constituency, and it should be considered as soon as possible. If my right hon. Friend can give that assurance, he will give satisfaction in all quarters.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I too want to detain the Committee for only two minutes, and I think the Committee should clear its mind, in view of the persuasive and I am afraid rather misleading answer of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. It was pointed out quite properly that we are not asking in this Amendment that any particular class of people shall be included in the Bill, but that the Statutory Committee set up for this purpose shall consider the classes of people covered by this Amendment. The answer of the Parliamentary Secretary was that you could not do that, because the Committee will already be faced with a difficult problem, and we must not overburden them with details at the outset; but the day may come, when we shall have to seek advice about the black-coated workers.
I want to know what power the Minister has under the Bill to consult this Committee in regard to black-coated workers. The Minister says he has that power under Sub-section (5) of Clause 19. With due respect, I doubt if he has the power under that Clause. That gives him the power to refer to the Committee from time to time for consideration and advice questions relating to the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Acts and possible amendments of those Acts. In my submission, the proper interpretation is that he can refer to the Committee questions which arise out of the practical working of the Acts, and for their advice as to the direction, if any, in which the Acts have to be amended in order to cover difficulties in actual operation, but it does not cover the powers we are asking the Minister to take to submit to this Committee the question of advising as to the inclusion of new classes within the ambit of insurance.
I think the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary was a very strong argument in favour of the Amendment on the Paper. He referred to the Report of the Royal Commission. One of the things it impresses upon one is
that the Commission found great difficulty in arriving at a decision in regard to many of these questions, and it seems to me that the Statutory Committee is a body which might be of greatest assistance to the Ministry of Labour in deciding in the future as to what extension should be made in the ambit of the Insurance Acts. I should have thought the Minister would have been glad to have the assistance of a Committee of this character on this question. We do not want to impose on the Committee at the outset a greater burden than it can be expected to bear, and all we are asking is that the Minister shall take power to refer these questions to the Committee when it has time and opportunity to decide them. On its report the Minister and the Members of this House and the public generally will have the information to enable them to arrive at a decision.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: We are advised that there can be no question at all, that the words in Sub-section (5) of Clause 19 give us the power to ask the advice of the committee on matters affecting the extension, or the contraction for that matter, of the number of people coming under the scheme. We can quite definitely ask whether this or that class at present outside the scheme should be brought in.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I heard the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary last night on Clause 19, Sub-section (5), and I gathered that there was a possibility of referring these questions for almost immediate settlement. If it had not been for the time limitation imposed on us, I am sure that one of the questions which would have brought the House to its feet would have been the question of the income level as laid down here. It is true we have tended in the past to put an income bar into the insurance scheme, and there are a great many people outside the scheme who might be in. It affects black-coated workers, share fishermen, agricultural and domestic workers, and I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who will have a great deal of work to do, if he cannot give serious consideration to the point put by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) and give us some definite legislation on this point at an early date. As a matter of fact, I
think that, giving the right hon. Gentleman all the new structure of this Bill, giving him all he asks for in the principles to which we definitely object, he would from his own point of view be wise to consider this matter. I think the Bill lacks fulness in that it leaves out all these classes who might have been contributors to the scheme and helped to make it more solvent than it is likely to be in present circumstances. I should like to ask him if, perhaps after the present Bill has gone through, he cannot consider legislation at some early date.

4.42 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Member has asked us to consider legislation after this Bill is passed, but we are not through this one yet. I cannot be expected to give a pledge that I will at once introduce more unemployment legislation dealing with this point. The Committee will, I think, realise from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said that the object of this Clause is to enable him to refer this and other questions to the Statutory Committee for consideration and advice. I hope the Committee will be content now, if I say that we will bear most carefully in mind everything that has been said.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: The replies which the right hon. Gentleman has given seem to me a very good reason why the Movers of this Amendment should persist with it, because it is perfectly obvious that, having passed one considerable Measure dealing with Unemployment Insurance, any Government would be reluctant in a year or two to embark on a fresh Measure of that kind, and we ought to try on this Bill to get some assurance on the question of the people with incomes of £250. The Parliamentary Secretary a few minutes ago said the effect of this Amendment would be to impose an immediate statutory duty on the Committee, but, with respect, I suggest that he has misconstrued the words of Clause 20, because it provides that the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee shall, as soon as may be, after the passing of this Act, make such proposals. "As soon as may be" is surely a very elastic phrase, and merely means that the Committee would have to deal with this matter as soon as time permitted. I put it to the
Parliamentary Secretary: If an Amendment were put down on the Report stage, ordering that the Statutory Committee should consider the matter and make proposals in due course, would he be prepared to accept an Amendment of that kind?
I would like to say something on what was said by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) who pointed out that the difficulty of dealing with this matter arose from the difficulty of trying to deal with unemployment by means of unemployment insurance. It seems to me that the moral to be drawn from this Debate is quite different It was drawn by the hon. Lady who moved the Amendment. The Debate shows, not that we ought to diminish unemployment insurance, but that we ought to extend it. The days are long passed when anyone objects to some form of unemployment relief, and the great majority of the Members of this House accept the principle of unemployment insurance. But it has always seemed to me that there is one valid objection to unemployment insurance, and that is that you place on your low-paid workers a form of compulsion which you do not place on other classes in the community. You say: "We are compelling you to insure, but that compulsion shall not apply to people who are better off than you are." For that reason I think we ought not to diminish insurance but that the way out of the difficulty is to extend it to everyone of His Majesty's subjects, from the Minister of Labour downwards.
It would be unfortunate if this Bill went through without our getting any satisfaction on this point. Almost every Member of the House can give examples of members of the middle and professional classes whom they know personally, who have become unemployed and who would have been glad to have been inside the scope of the insurance scheme. When a man enters into insurance he insures against two things. First of all he insures against destitution. But he also insures against the fear of destitution, and I suggest that the fear of destitution is often stronger in the middle classes than in the wage-earning classes.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I would like to add a few words with a view to finding out from
the Minister what explanation is to be given in the event of this matter being brought forward at a later stage when he is agreeable to the introduction of an Amendment providing for certain classes of persons to be dealt with, although he may not be prepared to include those people to whom we are referring now. It appears to me to be wholly illogical to introduce the question even of the agricultural worker now, if the Sub-section of Clause 19 is sufficient to allow the Minister to deal with the matter without any addition. I and many of my hon. Friends are deeply perturbed about the position, because it means that the Statutory Committee when considering matters will be confined now and for some time to come to dealing with the question of those persons which are specifically mentioned, and others will be regarded as outside their scope unless and until the Minister himself sees fit to raise the question of the black-coated worker, the share fishermen and others. We want this question raised. We do not see how the matter will be discussed or considered by the Statutory Committee unless this House says now that it must be considered. We realise that what the Minister has said is quite right. He says he is satiated with this Bill, and obviously if his condition is such as to make him feel like that now, it is not likely that he or anyone connected with him is going to add to the condition by introducing matters not already dealt with in the Bill.
I think that the argument brought forward for including in the field of unemployment insurance other sections of the community have been very well put. It is not a minor matter; it is a matter of grave importance. We feel that if it is to be dealt with at all, not only ought we to be assured that this Sub-section gives the Minister the power of dealing with it, but that there is an obligation upon the Statutory Committee at some time or other, as soon as may be after the passing of this Bill, to go into the matter and see what ought to be done. In those circumstances I think that the assurance which has been given is not sufficient. We should be given the additional assurance that the matter will be brought before the Statutory Committee at some time or other.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: When you, Mr. Chairman, proposed to the Committee that the three categories of workers
covered by three separate Amendments should be considered together in the same group, I must say with respect that I was a little doubtful; but in deference to you and the evident wish of the Committee I raised no objection. I think that consideration of the case of the share fishermen carries with it many factors and implications which do not apply at all to domestic servants or the brain workers of over £250 a year income limit. Domestic work is a very much more fluctuating industry, and the case of the black-coated workers carries with it very wide implications indeed. As has been said many times, fishermen are undergoing very bad times indeed. I have every sympathy with the Scottish Members who put forward the case for men in the industry to be included in unemployment insurance. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out just now that the Government would be unable to accept the Amendment as the case of the share fishermen was different from that of the agricultural workers who are covered in Clause 20. I agree that the incidence is different. I agree also that the Unemployment Insurance Commission turned down the case of the share fishermen, whereas they recommended that the Statutory Committee should examine the case of the agricultural workers. I admit that, but at the same time I feel that the share fishermen have a case which should be considered anew by the impartial body which is to be set up under the Bill.
The reason why the share fishermen were originally turned down by the Royal Commission was, first, that all share fishermen in the trawling industry got more than £250 a year. That statement was based on evidence which was taken some time ago. I think that share fishermen at the present time would be extremely pleased indeed if they could get that sum of money each year. Another point on which they were turned down was that the drifters and the inshore men are engaged in a purely seasonal trade. That is true. I understand the difficulty in that connection, and that is why a special scheme would have to be devised, because I do not think that share fishermen in any circumstances could possibly come under the overhead scheme. The third reason for which they were turned down was also a fairly accurate one, that the sharers are not working for an employer and that there
is no contracted service. That difficulty could also be overcome.
At any rate we are not asking very much. All we are asking is that the Statutory Committee examine the case, and if they find it is possible to devise a special scheme for the insurance of these share fishermen, they should make a report to the Minister. I realise the difficulties in the way of the Government accepting such an Amendment or accepting the implication that the Statutory Committee were obliged to come out with a scheme. We do not ask as much as that. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that under Clause 19, Sub-section (5), it was within the power of the Statutory Committee to examine the cases of the various classes of workers omitted from the Act. I appeal to the Minister, in view of that, if he cannot see his way to accept the Amendment which stands in my name, to give some indication or make some sort of declaration to the effect that as soon as he finds that the Statutory Committee has time to examine the case of the share fishermen, he will under this Clause approach them and ask them to do so. That is not asking very much. I want to be assured that the case of the share fishermen is not turned down out of hand.

4.57 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I would like to reinforce the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend. What he has not mentioned is that this job or profession of share fishermen is probably one of the most precarious in our island to-day. That is not the fault of the fishermen; it is the fault of the fish. That is one of the things that is not recognised possibly by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary in dealing with this question. Fish are singularly odd, as no doubt anyone who has studied piscatorial methods will have found. Fish are like women, they are uncertain; they are coy; and they are hard to please. I will prove that statement. A woman had a hat last season, but she must have an entirely different hat next season, not because the hat of last season is worn out, but because there is a new fashion in hats. It is exactly the same with fish. Last season they spawned in one ground, and next season for no reason whatever—it is not that the ground is not equally good—they will go to an entirely different ground, simply because of a change of
innate fashion in fish. How is a fisherman to ascertain where the fish is to go next year? How is a designer of a hat to know what a woman will want next year? That is where share fishermen are peculiarly handicapped, because there is no indication at any time or from year to year where he is to seek his fish. So his whole livelihood is endangered, not by his own lack of intelligence or enthusiasm or desire to find an honest living—

Mr. BOOTHBY: On a point of Order. Would it be in order for the Committee to tender congratulations to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) for having joined the National Government?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I am glad to think that, knowing the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) as the rest of the Committee does, you, Sir Dennis, were not drawn by that red herring. Indeed, I am astonished that the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) should have tried to interfere with the sequence of my remarks upon a cause which he has, I understand, greatly at heart, by bringing in this totally irrelevant subject of the hon. Member for Bridgeton having so far raised himself to a situation of intelligence as to have joined the National Government. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is more intrigued by the remarks of the hon. Member for Bridgeton than by my plea for the share fishermen, but I wish to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend who introduced the Amendment.
We are not asking for anything extraordinary or difficult. We are not asking for the immediate inclusion of these fishermen in the scheme. We are merely asking that the Statutory Committee should examine the case of the share fishermen and should, within six months, bring forward some scheme which will give these people the hope of being removed from a position in which they are at the mercy of the eccentricities of the fish. Although some of my remarks may have been in a lighter vein, I do not wish to minimise the importance of this appeal. Those of use who live in coastwise towns know the hardships which these men have to undergo and the precarious existence of themselves and their families under present conditions. Now that their own differences have been more
or less composed, now that they are united on this question, I hope that the Minister will give them that sympathetic hearing which I know he always gives to appeals on behalf of those who are unfortunately placed.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. RICHARD LAW: I do not wish to detain the Committee, nor do I wish to disregard the plea which has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary. At the same time, when a matter of so much interest to my constituents is being discussed I cannot allow their case to go by default. The Parliamentary Secretary said that there was a prima facie case against the inclusion of share fishermen because of the opinion of the Royal Commission. That is arguable but I do not want to argue it now. What I do want to point out is that there is a strong prima facie case in favour of their inclusion, from the very facts of their employment. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the case of a long-distance steam trawler sailing from the port of Hull. On such a trawler, as he no doubt knows, there would be a crew of 12. Of those 12 men, who are engaged in almost exactly the same employment, 10 will come under both Part I and Part II of this Bill. One of them will come under Part II only, and one will not come under the Measure at all. Merely on account of such anomalies as that, arising in their employment, there is a strong case for the examination by the Statutory Committee of the whole position in relation to share fishermen. We ask for no more. We do not ask the Government to make any recommendation. We ask however that this Committee should be empowered to examine the share fishermen's case, at their leisure if you like, when the opportunity arises—not necessarily now, or next month but when they have disposed of other and more important matters. Those who represent fishing constituencies have a duty to urge upon the Government that the case of these men should not, as I have said, go by default.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: May I renew the appeal which I made to the Committee some time ago not to spend any more time on these Amendments, on account of the other matters which remain to be discussed? On this question of share fishermen I have already stated that we
have full power to refer the matter to the Statutory Committee later on. I would remind hon. Members of what the Royal Commission said:
There is not the same difficulty of testing a claim to sickness benefit as there is in the case of a claim to unemployment benefit. From the nature of his occupation a share fisherman during his period on shore may ordinarily be living on the proceeds of a previous trip. The period on shore may in some cases be prolonged but it would be a matter of insuperable difficulty to fix, either generally or in any individual case, the point at which genuine involuntary unemployment, justifying a claim for benefit, began.
It may reassure hon. Members who are particularly interested in this question if I remind them that share fishermen sharing in the proceeds of the catch come under the provisions of Part II of the Bill and that in the case of Part II the difficulty of proving when involuntary unemployment starts does not arise, because the test under Part II is not whether a man is wholly unemployed, but whether he has sufficient wages to enable him to support himself. I do not think that the constituents of the hon. Members who have dealt with this matter, have yet fully realised the enormous advantage which will accrue to them under Part II of the Bill as compared with their present position. I venture to think that when they have had five or six months' experience of the working of Part II of this Measure they will be reluctant to have any claim put forward on their behalf for inclusion in Part I.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I appreciate the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary, but, while I have no wish to detain the Committee unduly, I must point out that this matter is regarded as of vital importance by thousands of people in the North of Scotland, who constitute a considerable element in the population of Scotland. I am in agreement with the observations of the hon. Gentleman. I have been requested by a majority of the share fishermen in my constituency to bring forward this request, and I believe that there is a majority in most of the other constituencies concerned, in favour of inclusion in the Unemployment Insurance scheme. But I feel bound to point out that, having examined the question closely, I do not think the fishermen fully realise the benefits which accrue to them under Part II of the Bill and which they
will get without making any contributions at all. I also recognise that there are administrative difficulties which make their inclusion in Part I of the present Bill practically impossible.
In the first place, how can one say when a share fisherman, in the herring fishing industry at any rate, is unemployed? I do not think it is possible to define unemployment in that industry because one cannot tell how long a man has been living on the proceeds of a previous trip or to what extent he is occupied in repairing boats and so forth. The second difficulty is in regard to the contributions. These men are not employed by anybody. Are they to be asked themselves to pay these enormous contributions in order to qualify for a benefit which, in my judgment, under the present Bill would prove to be largely illusory? At the present time they are covered by the Health Insurance Scheme and they will be covered by Part II of this Bill. I believe that they themselves will realise, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that they will be better off than they have ever been before. But my hon. Friend realises I am sure that this Bill is not the end of unemployment insurance. It is, indeed, only the beginning. We shall be discussing this question for the next 50 years and later schemes will extend this principle over the whole income-earning population of this country. I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises as readily as any of us that the share fishermen will have a right to be considered on their merits and to take their place in the Unemployment Insurance Scheme of 1935, 1936, 1937 or 1938.

5.11 p.m.

Major HILLS: I desire to bring before the Committee the case of domestic servants. Under the Act of 1920 only those domestic servants employed in any trade or business carried on for the purposes of gain were insurable. The total number of domestic servants of all sorts was 1,600,000 and of these only 350,000 were insured persons and so the matter stood when the Royal Commission reported, and they suggested in paragraph 368 of their report that certain classes indicated in paragraphs 362 and 363 should be brought within the insurance scheme. I wish to know whether the Government intend that servants employed in institu-
tions should be included in the insurable class. These would be servants employed in clubs, schools, universities, hospitals, whole-time caretakers and office cleaners and the domestic staffs in shops and offices. Whether the Government include these or not there will remain great inequalities unless insurance is extended to all servants including private domestic servants.
If I may give some instances of the position which exists at present, a servant employed in a nursing home is insurable, whereas a servant in a hostel for nurses attached to a hospital is not insurable. A servant in a hostel provided by a firm for its staff is insurable, whereas a servant in a Y.M.C.A. hostel is not insurable. The parlour maid of a doctor who shows in the patients is insurable, but the parlour maid of a doctor who does not show in the patients is not insurable. The chauffeur who acts for a doctor or a professional man in his business is insurable, but the chauffeur who acts for the doctor or professional man during his leisure, is not insurable. These inequalities have a serious effect and convey an idea of unfairness.

Mr. HUDSON: This question arose on Clause 2 of the Bill and we have taken power, I think, to deal with those precise anomalies.

Major HILLS: I do not think with respect that the hon. Gentleman dealt with the case of the chauffeur who drives the doctor round to his patients, as compared with the chauffeur who drives him out on Sunday with his family. I do not think you have power to deal with that case, but the difficulty is, and I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate it, that a man is nervous about taking up domestic service because he will lose his insurance rights. I agree that a woman is more protected, for she can return to insured employment within two years without her claim to benefit being prejudiced. Therefore, the free movement of applicants among all classes of domestic service is restricted. A large number of men servants in the last few years have fallen out of work, and if any hon. Member doubts whether there is real unemployment among men servants, I hope those of my colleagues who are so fortunate as to possess a chauffeur will
ask him when they go home to-night. I am sure they will find that there is very severe and terrible unemployment among chauffeurs, because so many car owners either drive themselves or possess a son or a daughter who does it for them.
Then a large number of elderly servants are being replaced by young day servants, and there is a large amount of unemployment there. It is very hard to give the exact figures. The percentage of unemployment among insurable servants in December last was 17.3, which is about the average of the whole country. Still, I am informed that there is a very large number out of work. Further, it would increase the status of domestic service, which now stands a good deal too low, if it were included in the general insurance scheme for the country, and it would make men and women take to that service where they are now reluctant to do so.
I would like to deal with the objections of the Royal Commission, which really all come down to the difficulty of finding when servants are at work and when they are not, the difficulty of estimating the revenue that their contributions and those of their employers would amount to, and the difficulty of assessing claims. I think we must all admit that there are difficulties. If a man or a woman is employed in an office, it is easy to see when he or she is out of work, but when people are employed in a home, especially the part-time workers, it is difficult, I admit. But are these difficulties beyond the power of the Ministry and its highly skilled staff to meet? In the past, especially when the scheme was started, there were far more difficult problems than this. I agree that here we have a new class brought into insurance, a class that works under different conditions from those of most of the insurable subjects, but I am not at all convinced that the skill and knowledge of the Ministry of Labour are incapable of dealing with this difficult subject. This is a very real case, because there is a large amount of unemployment. Domestic service is not popular. You would increase its popularity, and you would unify the service, so that a man or a woman could move freely from one part to another without losing benefit. For these reasons I submit the Amendment to the good judgment of my right hon. Friend.

5.20 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: I hope the Minister of Labour will make a real effort to bring in something to include domestic servants. It was said that it would be impossible to do so under health insurance, but some people put their minds to it, and they were brought in and are now almost under a perfect scheme. If anyone is in doubt as to the plight of domestic servants, they have only to advertise for a chauffeur. The other day a friend of mine advertised for a chauffeur-gardener, and in two days got over 1,500 applications. I have a feeling that if domestic servants and share fishermen were organised it would be different. We are so apt, as politicians, to overcome the difficulties when the people who press for reforms are organised, and so I think it is very much up to the House of Commons to look after the unorganised workers. These domestic servants, we know, are unorganised from the nature of their work. After all, so much of our personal happiness depends on them, and we have to get more people into domestic service and not make it more difficult for them than for other people to be insured.
I know that there are difficulties, but the Minister has his experts, and the difficulties, I am sure, can be overcome. I only hope that he will realise that sooner or later they must be overcome. I know the right hon. Gentleman said he was fed up with this question, or rather he did not say "fed up," but that he was tired or something of that sort, but he has given us an almost perfect scheme in other respects, and I hope he will give us some promise that he will go into the question of domestic service, because I am certain that more trouble is not taken because these people are unorganised. Once they got organised, if they should do it, the House of Commons would soon

find a way to get over the difficulties, but the very nature of their hours and work makes it very difficult for them to organise, so I beg the Minister to give us an assurance that he will put his great and sympathetic heart on to this question.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. BRIANT: I am very anxious about this matter, because some time ago I came into contact with a large class of cleaners of Government offices, many of whom were paying in for a long period before it was discovered that they came under the category of domestic work. They were greatly disappointed that, after having stamped their cards for a long period, they were not insured, and all the satisfaction that they got was that the value of the stamps which they had put on was returned to them. So anomalous is the position that if cleaners clean an office when the office is in use, they are insured, but if they clean the office at other times, to the advantage of the staff, they are not insured. I agree about the chauffeurs. I want to mention one case. There is a man at present employed in this very House, and only this morning he is applying, I find, for relief. He is employed while the House is open, and the nature of his employment classifies him as a domestic servant, but he finds it almost impossible to get work during the four months when the House is closed. I cannot help thinking that the common sense of this House will demand that men of that character, who are legitimately workers just as much as anybody else, should be brought within the ambit of this scheme, and I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 82; Noes, 249.

Division No. 102.]
AYES.
[5.26 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Cove, William G.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Curry, A. C.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur


Attlee, Clement Richard
Daggar, George
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)


Batey, Joseph
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)


Bernays, Robert
Dickle, John P.
Griffith, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Dobble, William
Groves, Thomas E.


Briant, Frank
Edwards, Charles
Grundy, Thomas W.


Buchanan, George
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Cape, Thomas
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Harris, Sir Percy


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Hicks, Ernest George


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Holdsworth, Herbert
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


John, William
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Stewart, J. H. (File, E.)


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Thorne, William James


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Tinker, John Joseph


Kirkwood, David
Maxton, James
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Lawson, John James
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Leckie, J. A.
Owen, Major Goronwy
White, Henry Graham


Leonard, William
Paling, Wilfred
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Liddall, Walter S.
Parkinson, John Alien
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Radford, E. A.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Lunn, William
Rea, Walter Russell
Wilmot, John


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)



McEntee, Valentine L.
Salt, Edward W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Miss Rathbone and Sir J. Withers.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dunglass, Lord
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Eady, George H.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Apsley, Lord
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Atholl, Duchess of
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mabane, William


Balley, Eric Alfred George
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
McKie, John Hamilton


Balniel, Lord
Everard, W. Lindsay
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Fraser, Captain Ian
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Martin, Thomas B.


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Borodale, Viscount
Glossop, C. W. H.
Meller, Sir Richard James


Boulton, W. W.
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Morrison, William Shephard


Brass, Captain Sir William
Graves, Marjorie
Moss, Captain H. J.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grigg, Sir Edward
Munro, Patrick


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Grimston, R. V.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Buchan, John
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nunn, William


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Burnett, John George
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Patrick, Colin M.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hanbury, Cecil
Peat, Charles U.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Sir George


Carver, Major William H.
Harbord, Arthur
Percy, Lord Eustace


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hartington, Marquess of
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hartland, George A.
Petherick, M.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pybus, Sir Percy John


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Christie, James Archibald
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Clarke, Frank
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hurd, Sir Percy
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Conant, R. J. E.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Cook, Thomas A.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Robinson, John Roland


Cooke, Douglas
Jamieson, Douglas
Ropner, Colonel L.


Craven-Ellis, William
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ross, Ronald D.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Ker, J. Campbell
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Cross, R. H.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Crossley, A. C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Runge, Norah Cecil


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Denville, Alfred
Law, Sir Alfred
Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Doran, Edward
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Drewe, Cedric
Levy, Thomas
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Duggan, Hubert John
Lewis, Oswald
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)




Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Summersby, Charles H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Skelton, Archibald Noel
Sutcliffe, Harold
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Tate, Mavis Constance
Wells, Sydney Richard


Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n,S.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Templeton, William P.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Somervell, Sir Donald
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick.on-T.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Train, John
Woimer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Tree, Ronald
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Stones, James
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement



Storey, Samuel
Turton, Robert Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Stourton, Hon. John J.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Mr. Womersley and Commander Southby.


Strauss, Edward A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 19, line 42, at the end, to insert:
(2) The Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, examine the case for the insurance against unemployment of share fishermen, and shall, within six months after the passing of this Act, make a report to the Minister containing any proposals and any recommendations they may consider practicable in the interests of the fishing industry with respect thereto, and the report shall be laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Petherick.]

The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) desire to move the Amendment in his name?

Mr. PETHERICK: In view of the explanation of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

The CHAIRMAN: In accordance with the arrangement that was made, if the hon. Member does not wish for a Division he will not move his Amendment, and I will not propose it from the Chair.

Major HILLS: I beg to move, in page 19, line 42, at the end, to insert:
(2) The Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, make such proposals as may seem to them practicable for the insurance against unemployment of domestic servants, and shall make a report to the Minister containing the proposals and any recommendations of the committee with respect thereto, and the report shall be laid before Parliament.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 72; Noes, 265.

Division No. 103.]
AYES.
[5.37 p.m.


Aciand, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Grenfelt, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Malialleu, Edward Lancelot


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves. Thomas E.
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bernays, Robert
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Paling, Wilfred


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Harris, Sir Percy
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Rea, Walter Russell


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Holdsworth, Herbert
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Copeland, Ida
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
John, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Curry, A. C.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kirkwood, David
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dobble, William
Lawson, John James
White, Henry Graham


Edwards, Charles
Leckie, J. A.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Leonard, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wilmot, John


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Withers, Sir John James


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry
Major Hills and Mr. F. Briant.


NOES.


Aciend-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Apsley, Lord
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Aske, Sir Robert William
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Balniel, Lord


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Radford, E. A.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Raikes, Henry V. A. N.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Hamilton, Sir George (llford)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Borodale, Viscount
Hanbury, Cecil
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Boulton, W. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Harbord, Arthur
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George S. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Robinson, John Roland


Brass, Captain Sir William
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert N.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ross, Ronald D.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd, Hexham)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Buchan, John
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Buchan-Hepburn. P. G. T.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Burnett, John George
Hurd, Sir Percy
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tsids)


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Russell, H. J. (Eddisbury)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Salt, Edward W.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Jamieson, Douglas
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Carver, Major William H.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Law, Sir Alfred
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, s.)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Christie, James Archibald
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Clarke, Frank
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Clayton, Sir, Christopher
Levy, Thomas
Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lewis, Oswald
Somervell, Sir Donald


Colfox, Major William Philip
Liddall, Walter S.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Conant, R. J. E.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Cook, Thomas A.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Cooke, Douglas
Lumley, Captain Lawrence N.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fyide)


Craven-Ellis, William
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Crook, J. Smedley
Mabane, William
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C.G.(Partick)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Cross, R. H.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stones, James


Crossley, A. C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Storey, Samuel


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
McEwen. Captain J. H. F.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
McKie, John Hamilton
Strauss, Edward A.


Denville, Alfred
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Dickle, John P.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Summersby, Charles H.


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Sutcliffe, Harold


Doran, Edward
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,s.)


Drewe, Cedric
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. H.
Templeton, William P.


Duggan, Hubert John
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Duncan James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Martin, Thomas B.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Dunglass, Lord
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Eady, George H.
Melier, Sir Richard James
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Ellis, Sir H. Geoffrey
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Train, John


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Tree, Ronald


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Entwistle, Cyril fullard
Moore Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Erskine-Bolst. Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Morrison, William Shephard
Wallace Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Munro, Patrick
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Walisend)


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Fraser, Captain Ian
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Nunn, William
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Palmer, Francis Noel
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Gillett, Sir George Masterrman
Patrick, Colin M.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Gluckstein, Louis Hall.
Pearson, William G.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Peat, Charles U.
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Penny, Sir George
Wolmer. Rt. Hon. Viscount


Gower, Sir Robert
Percy, Lord Eustace
Womersley, Walter James


Graham, Sir F. Fergus, (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Petherick. M.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noacks)


Graves, Marjorie
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)



Greaves-Lord, Sir Waiter
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Lord Erskine and Commander Southby.


Grigg, Sir Edward
Procter, Major Henry Adam



Grimston, R. V.
Pybus, Sir Percy John



Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, in page 20, line 6, after "employed," to insert "or persons engaged."
The effect of this Amendment is to allow the Committee to receive representations from persons engaged in the agricultural industry. The Minister said last night that the position of a smallholder, with members of his family working on the holding, had presented some difficulty. This Amendment would allow such persons to make representations. As I understand that the Government are willing to accept the Amendment, I will say nothing further.

5.47 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am prepared to accept the Amendment, which I think does help us to attain the object of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 21.—(Amendments as to arrangements with associations of employed persons.)

5.48 p.m.

Mr. HICKS: I beg to move, in page 20, line 25, at the end, to add:
(2) Any question arising under this Section shall be referred to and determined by an insurance officer, court of referees, or the Umpire as if it were a question arising under Section seventeen of the principal Act and the said Section seventeen shall have effect accordingly.
I am very much encouraged by the attitude of the Minister on the last Amendment. As I see the name of the Minister associated with this Amendment, I do not think it is necessary to argue the case for it at any length, although substantial reasons for its inclusion could be put forward. As a matter of fact, on one occasion quite recently the Umpire said it was impossible not to feel sympathy for the association which paid the sums in question without having any reason to believe that the insured contributor was not entitled to receive them. All that is asked for under this Amendment is that, in the event of such a situation arising, either the insurance officer, the court of referees, or the Umpire can be appealed to, and the ease argued.

5.50 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I think that this Amendment, like the last one, strengthens the object of the Clause, and I am prepared to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22 (Amendments as to schemes) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 23.—(Amendments as to offences.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.51 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: As the Amendment which stands in my name has not been called, I wish to ask the Minister a question. The point is one of some importance. An employer may have failed to stamp the card of an employé, and because of it that employé's rights to benefit may be seriously affected. I know that in certain cases the court of referees have power, within certain limits, to deem that the stamps have been affixed. All I' want is an assurance from the Minister that where it can be shown that the employé is not to blame for any omission on the part of his employer to stamp his card, he should be credited with the number of stamps which the card ought to bear, and that if there is a conflict afterwards it should be between the Ministry of Labour and the employer, and the workman should not suffer in any way.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: When I saw the hon. Member's Amendment on the Paper, I looked into this matter, and the conclusion to which I came was that the Amendment was unnecessary because it is the present practice, where an employer has not paid contributions, to deem that they have been paid if the insured person has made reasonable efforts to see that the contributions were paid by his employer.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The point I raise concerns those cases in which it has been decided to take criminal proceedings against the employer. There are a number of cases in which the employer is not proceeded against in the criminal courts, because it is decided that he is not criminally responsible. All I ask is that
where criminal responsibility on the part of the employer is proved the workman should not have to prove anything. I do not mind the position as it is at the moment in cases where the Department says, "This is not a case for criminal proceedings"; but where the employer has been proceeded against for a criminal offence the Department should take the fact of that prosecution as sufficient proof for its purpose.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I will certainly look into the point between now and the Report stage, and perhaps have a word with the hon. Member, and if there is anything in his point I will see whether appropriate words can be inserted on the Report stage.

Clause 24 (Amendment as to summary recovery of sums due to Unemployment Fund) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 25.—(Amendment of s. 41 of principal Act, and application of Acts to officers of reserve forces.)

5.55 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I beg to move, in page 23, line 16, after "officers," to insert
on the retired or emergency lists of the Royal Navy or Royal Marines, to officers.
This Amendment and the other Amendments to this Clause standing in my name are all purely drafting Amendments, and do not in any way alter the substance of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 23, line 17, after "reserves," insert "and."
In line 17, after "officers," insert:
"to retired officers of the regular Army, to officers of the."
In line 18, after "officers," insert:
"to officers on the retired list of the Royal Air Force, to officers of the,"
In line 18, after the second "reserve," insert "air force special reserve."
In line 19, leave out "and."
In line 20, after "and," insert "auxiliary air force reserve."
In line 21, after "naval," insert "marine."
1812
In line 22, leave out "or."
In line 23, after "Marines," insert "or naval reserve."
In line 23, after out," insert "or taken into employment."
In line 26, leave out "commissioned," and insert "given a commission or warrant."—[Sir H. Betterton.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, 'That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

5.57 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to raise one point with the Minister. First, I take it that the ordinary serving soldier of five years' standing will get the extra benefit. The second point is one that has attracted considerable attention. I did not put down an Amendment, because I could not see how to introduce it here, but the point is one of substance. Ordinarily a soldier gets his benefit on discharge, but if he is discharged for bad conduct he is treated differently from any other man who is discharged for bad conduct. A civilian discharged from employment for bad conduct certainly has a definite penalty placed on him, but a soldier discharged, for any reason which the Army deems sufficient, cannot qualify for benefit until he qualifies anew as a contributor, and I submit that that is far too harsh a penalty. There ought to be some way of limiting the penalty which is imposed upon the soldier. He is discharged for some reason which the Army thinks sufficient, and he has no right of appeal. I think every man ought to have some court of appeal open to him; I regard that as elementary justice.
Take the case of a man who served for 10 years in the Army, and was then discharged for what appeared to the Army authorities to be good and sufficient reasons; although his misconduct might have appeared serious to those authorities, I do not think it sufficient to disqualify him for benefit and to take away all the rights that he built up during his service. While he might be liable to punishment, some of the punishment inflicted upon him is altogether too severe. I ask the Minister to consider, between now and the Report stage, whether a board might not be set up to which the soldier could appeal, in order that his punishment in
regard to insurance benefit might be limited. The position at the present moment is that, although a man may have 10 year' service as a soldier to his credit, before he can get benefit he has to start in unemployment insurance as though he had no service at all, and to qualify anew. That is most unfair. It is not what is done in the case of a criminal in civil life; such a person retains his right to benefit as an insured contributor, and I do not think that a soldier who may have committed some criminal act during his service should be treated differently from a man who has committed an offence in civil life.

Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has made his point very clear. I will consult the Service Departments about it. Quite clearly I cannot give an answer now, because the question is a technical one, and affects the Service Departments rather than myself.

Mr. THORNE: Will the Minister take into consideration the other case in which a man qualified for benefit before he joined the Army and has committed an offence? Will he be debarred from benefit if he is discharged from the Army for some very serious offence?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I really could not answer that question now, but I will consider it when I am dealing with the other point in the question of the hon. Member for Gorbals. I could not give an answer now.

Clause 26 (Extension of principal Act to short service constables of the Metropolitan Police Force) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 27.—(Power of Minister to assist schemes for promoting greater regularity of employment.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper: In page 24, line 17, at the end, to add:
The Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee may at any time make a report to the Minister that a scheme for promoting greater regularity of employment in any industry is required and they may themselves, at any time, submit such
a scheme to the Minister for his approval. If a scheme under this sub-section has been approved by the Minister the committee may at any time report that it is not in force and that the industry is, in consequence, making claims upon the Insurance Fund which are unreasonable; and the provisions of sub-sections (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8) of section seventeen of this Act shall apply to such a report."—[Dir. Horobin.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): Does the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Horobin) rise to move his Amendment?

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: I desire to move an Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir Arthur Michael Samuel).

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The manuscript Amendment to which the hon. and gallant Member refers has not yet been reached. If the hon. Member for Central Southwark is not present, I cannot ask him to move his Amendment. I see that there is a manuscript Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel).

Captain RAMSAY: I beg to move, in page 24, line 17, after "scheme," to insert:
jointly prepared and accepted by an organisation representing employers and an organisation representing workpeople in any industry.
I move this manuscript Amendment in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel). It is very simple, and has the backing of very influential opinion in this country, including that of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. The objection that is taken in some quarters to this Clause is that the Minister is given power to approve schemes, but it is not laid down by whom a scheme may be submitted or whether, in approving a scheme, the Minister shall or shall not be bound to obtain the approval of either employers or employed. In Sub-section (2) the Minister has power, in promoting one of these schemes, to make payments on behalf of employers, which payments he can recover from them, and any objection to such a scheme must be made by a joint committee consisting of employers and employed. What appears to be a fairly innocuous Clause upon the surface,
might prove to be the reverse, were the Minister of Labour to be someone in sympathy with a scheme put forward by employés. He might approve a scheme against which the employers were very strongly opposed.
Under the Bill as it would then be, the employers would have no power to resist such a scheme being put through, and they might find themselves bound to submit to it. They might find the Minister making payments under this scheme against which they had no power to resist, and they might be unable to appeal against the scheme because, as Sub-section (2) lays down, any representation against the scheme must be made by a joint committee consisting of employers and employed. If the employed have formulated a scheme for the Minister to accept, it is hardly likely that they would join in a representation with the employers asking for the scheme to be modified.
I would ask the Minister to consider the possibility which I have outlined, and whether he can accept this very simple Amendment. It can offend no one, will not give any rights to employers or to employed, or differentiate in any sort of way. The hon. Baronet, on whose behalf I have moved this Amendment, asked me to express his great regret that he could not reach the Committee earlier, owing to circumstances over which he has no control. If I have brought the Amendment forward at too short notice for the Minister to make any promise now, I hope that he will look into it, in order that he might say at a later stage whether he could modify the Clause in some way and make a statement.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I feel sure that the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment will hardly expect me to be able to accept an Amendment of which I have only heard in the last five minutes, and of which I have not even had a copy. There may be something in his point. I will look into it between now and the Report stage, but I could not give him a considered answer to his representations at the present moment.

Captain RAMSAY: In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.10 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: We ought to be told the exact meaning of the Clause, which might mean a lot, and might mean nothing. I do not understand its implications in full. Wherever possible, we ought to have a statement from the Minister, in order that the Committee might know exactly the meaning of Clauses. I have been told that an arrangement has been come to between the Minister and the General Council of the Trades Union Congress. That might well be the case, and if it is, this Committee, as well as the General Council, should know what that arrangement is, or at least it ought to know what the arrangement means. I do not know whether that is true or not, because I have only heard it.
My first impression in regard to the Clause was that it might give power to the Minister to use State funds in order to subsidise employers. Not only myself but other skilled Parliamentarians think that the Clause might be read as giving the Minister power to make such subsidies from the Insurance Fund. Until that is made clear, and a definite pronouncement is made, I must reserve myself, despite what any other hon. Member might say, even if he be an official representative of the Labour Movement, to oppose the Clause. I will have no subsidised wages from the Insurance Fund, and I want a definite understanding that nothing of the sort is implied, even in the most indirect fashion. If anything of the sort is even indirectly implied, the two of us here will vote against the Clause and will use whatever influence we have.
The second point I wish to raise is to ask the Minister whether the machinery of the Clause is not intended as an attempt to ease the problem of casualisation of labour at the docks. If that is the purpose I have no objection, because I would welcome anything which would ease the terrible struggle at the docks. I first read about that struggle in Jack London's novels—the struggle at the docks for a job, and at the gates
even. While that may be the purpose of the Clause, we have to deal with it as it reads, not in regard to a purpose that might be implied, and we have to exercise more than cautiousness in this matter. If the purpose of the Clause be that which I have described, and if there is no other purpose, the Clause does not clearly explain that purpose. Any hon. Member reading the Clause as it now stands would not say that it had to do with casual labour at the docks, and it would need great imagination to connect the two. If the Clause seeks to eliminate that problem, I shall not oppose it or hinder it.
For good or for ill, there has been an agitation in this House over a period of time that has not been confined to one party, against men who work in various parts of the country, and frequently at the docks, for three days regularly per week. They work three days on and three days off. An attempt was made to deal with their problem in the Anomalies Act. When that Measure was introduced, the Labour Government of that time, in their first draft, sought to provide that a man's benefit could be refused if in the three days he earned more than a court of referees thought he was justified in earning. The Bill was subsequently modified so as to provide that benefit was confined to people who did not earn more than their normal standard wage. I have a feeling that this present Clause is an indirect method of getting at the person who works regularly three days a week. Such a person now gets benefit for the other three days, but my feeling is that this Clause is to be used as a lever to get such a man to spread his work over the whole week so that he may not qualify for the three days' benefit. Reading the Clause, not as a skilled Parliamentarian with capacity in these matters such as is possessed by great organisations like those of the employers and the trade unions, but as a simple Member of the House, I have to read what is here, and it seems to me that it would be wrong for us to pass the Clause unchallenged.
I want to get from the Parliamentary Secretary guarantees on two points. The first point is that under this Clause, neither directly nor even in the vaguest way indirectly, can any of the funds be used for subsidising labour or wages. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that they have the power to do that, that
they can reclaim the money from the employers, but I do not want even that power of reclaiming the wages from the employers to be given. The second point is as to whether there is implied in this Clause any power to compel workmen now working three days a week to alter that arrangement so that their work can be spread, or whether the Clause is to be confined entirely and solely to casual labour at the docks. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let the House of Commons know exactly what the Clause means. It may be that he has had talks with other people about it, and that is proper and correct, but I think the House is entitled to know the result of those talks.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: As so often happens with this Bill, the wording of the Clause is obscure, but I think I can paraphrase it, I hope satisfactorily to the Committee, by saying that the main object of the Clause is to give statutory authority for work which the Ministry of Labour has been doing for some considerable time, more especially in the dock industry. The Clause deals especially with the regularisation of employment, and therefore applies mainly to industries, such as the docks industry, where employment is particularly casual. The Clause enables us to assist in the regularisation of employment in the dock industry. It enables us to come to the assistance of voluntary schemes which have been approved by the men and by the employers, to second our officials as secretaries of these schemes, to put office accommodation at their disposal, and to supply them with stationery. But there is no possibility of the Clause being used to subsidise wages.
It also enables us to do what we have been doing for some considerable time at Liverpool. There, when men work perhaps for half-days for different employers during the week, instead of a man having to go round to each one of the employers at mid-day on Saturday and collect his wages for half a day here, and a day there, and two days somewhere else, he comes to a central stand, he is paid by us the amount due to him from all the employers, and the money is recovered by us from the employers. The only thing that the Clause does is to enable
us to go a little further, and where, as we hope may be possible in some industries, a supplementary scheme can be got going, to pay out any sums that may be necessary under such schemes, the employers having previously put us in funds for the purpose. We have so far achieved considerable success in our efforts to decasualise labour at the docks. Between 1925 and 1932 the register in the Port of London was reduced by 36 per cent., in Liverpool by 13 per cent., in Hull by 34 per cent., and in Bristol by 18 per cent. Further progress was made in nearly all ports in 1933, the register in Liverpool, for example, being reduced by 12 per cent., and in Bristol by 9.6 per cent. I hope the Committee will realise from these figures that the work we have been doing has met with a substantial measure of success. It is in order to regularise its continuance, and to give statutory authority for what we have been doing in the past, that we ask the permission of the Committee to have the Clause.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In the circumstances, we do not intend to divide against the Clause.

Mr. DENMAN: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain precisely what is meant by the words:
additional benefits in respect of unemployment.
I understand that the Ministry pay various sums by way of wages, but Sub-section (2) of the Clause speaks of additional benefits in respect of unemployment, and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would explain what they mean.

Mr. HUDSON: It is as part of a scheme for regularising employment. No scheme possessing this feature exists at present, but we want to take power for developments which we think are possible in the near future. I would stress the point that under this Clause the schemes will have to be voluntary. The Minister takes no power under the Clause to impose any scheme; it is only if the employers and the employés in an industry say, "Here is a scheme; will you use your machinery for carrying it out?" that we want the power to use that machinery. We anticipate that it may be possible that certain schemes for regularising employment
would contain as one of their essential elements compensatory payments to certain of the workmen concerned, whose employment would be adversely affected by the greater employment given to the remainder. That compensation payment would be something additional to unemployment benefit, and it would be provided, we anticipate, by funds put at our disposal by employers. It is payments of that kind that we are asking the Committee to authorise us to make on behalf of employers, in order to enable a comprehensive scheme to be carried through with our assistance, where without that assistance it would probably fall through.

Mr. DENMAN: Thank you.

Clauses 28 (Continuation of 20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. 16), 29 (Minor amendments), and 30 (Payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, &c.), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 31.—(Interpretation of Part I and construction of references.)

6.28 p.m.

Mr. COVE: I beg to move, in page 26, line 18, after "of," to insert "elementary and."
I apologise for the fact that this Amendment has not been put on the Paper, but is merely in manuscript form. It would make the paragraph read as follows:
'Education authority' means a local education authority for the purposes of elementary and higher education under the Education Act, 1921.
I understand that at the moment the duty of running the junior instruction centres will be the duty solely of those authorities responsible for higher education—what are generally known as Part II authorities, which in the main are county authorities. I desire that not only those authorities which are responsible for higher education alone, but also those authorities which are responsible solely for elementary education, and are generally termed Part III authorities, should have powers in this respect. I know that there are arguments on both sides with regard to this matter, but it is rather significant that the national body representing the education authorities is keenly desirous that this power should be in
the hands of the Part III authorities. I believe that representations have been made to the Ministry by the Secretary of that body. I observe that, curiously enough, the Minister himself has put down an Amendment to include the attendance officers of the Part III authorities, in order to compel attendance at instruction centres. Of course, that would be inevitable; but it seems to me that, as the Minister himself is endeavouring to secure the service of the attendance officers in Part III areas, the authorities in those areas should themselves have the power to run, organise and control the junior instruction centres.
In my own constituency the authority responsible for the junior instruction centre is the county authority. The county authority, however, is far away, and the local education authority in my constituency is only responsible for elementary education. In view of the fact that the authority there is responsible for elementary education, is keenly interested in the children in its schools, and is directly concerned with them in that area, it seems to me that that authority also ought to have the chance of following these youths into the junior instruction centre. I cannot quite understand the refusal of the Ministry to meet the request of the education authorities in this respect, because I should have thought that a local authority like my own Aberavon authority, if it had control, would show very much more interest in that particular centre, and what applies there would apply in many other areas. If the authority had the control, the appointment of the staff, and so on, the general conditions of the centre would be much better, the work done would be more effective, and I should imagine also that the follow-up would be better.
Speaking for my own area in particular—and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will listen to this—I said the other night that the junior instruction centre in my constituency was really a disgraceful building, as indeed it is. It is filthily dirty, and there seems to be no live local interest in it, as far as I can see. I am firmly of the opinion that, if the education authority in that area had the control and organisation of the junior instruction centre, they would
have found a far better building—they would have found a sanitary building to begin with, instead of an insanitary one—and they would have found a building where instruction in metal work, woodwork, and all the general practical subjects that are taught could be given far better than in the present building, simply because of local interest and local pride. The junior instruction centre does not fill the bill. It is no substitute for raising the school age. On the other hand, I frankly admit that, if junior instruction centres are to be established, we should make the best job we can of them. Let us get the fullest local interest. Let us get the best types of teachers that we can in order to get the best work out of the centres. If you had the thing organised locally, you would find an even greater keenness about the choice of instructors and teachers, apart altogether from the physical condition. You would find a tremendous local interest and you would, therefore, have the best people chosen for the job.
I have been thinking of some of the county areas where you have almost a complete rural organisation with one, two or three industrial areas. The junior instruction centres, in the main, will be in the industrial areas. Your county authority, being a rural authority, I will not say with a rural mind, but concerned in the rural side of the business, would be somewhat remote in attitude to the junior instruction centres. I think it would be really a good thing in those areas, to get the powers under the local education authority, which is responsible for Part III. I am told that there may be some powers of delegation, but that, I understand, will rest upon the decision of the county authority. I take it that there will not be any compulsory powers. If I am wrong in that, I should like to have it explained. As I understand it at present, it is intended that the county authority may delegate. There are no compulsory powers that I know of. Since the junior instruction centres are there, I am keen for local interest, which, I believe, will result in a keener desire to fulfil their functions, not only within the area of the centre itself, but I believe local interest will also find points of contact with the chidren as they enter into the industrial field, and will follow them with a keener and more lively interest than a county authority, which is far away
in distance and may be remote as far as interest is concerned.

6.34 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): I have no complaint of the hon. Member bringing forward a manuscript Amendment on the principle that one good turn deserves another, but I hope to show not only that there are reasons against the Amendment, but that, on the whole, it is not necessary. In the first place, as far as I am able to appreciate it, it would go a great deal beyond the actual object that the hon. Member has in mind, because the whole basis of the educational side of the Bill is that junior instruction centres are within the category of higher education, which is the province of Part II authorities. I will give one or two reasons which will show that the object of the Amendment is not advisable. In the first place, on the whole, the smaller the number of authorities dealing with the matter the better. Juvenile employment must depend to a great extent on the industrial position in the area. That industrial position is not determined by the boundaries of any particular urban district or non-county borough, but extends much further outside into adjacent parts of the county. If the Amendment were accepted, the Part III authority would only have powers within its own area, and would not be able to deal with adjacent portions of the area which, for industrial reasons should be and would be included as the Bill now stands. With regard to the teaching staff, in many cases no doubt the authority would utilise the services of part-time teachers in evening institutes and technical colleges. Those are under Part II authorities, and complications might arise. The teachers would be serving two masters, and considerable administrative inconvenience would ensue. Also, some of the young unemployed would go to evening courses in suitable technical institutes. Those evening courses are not under Part III authorities but under Part II authorities. That, again, would cause complications and difficulties.
It seems to me that the actual practice that goes on now is a sufficient answer to the point that the hon. Member has in mind. At present, in most of the
larger county areas a system of informal delegation is in operation as between the county authority and the Part III authority. The higher education committee works with the district higher education committee, which contains a substantial proportion of local people who understand the needs of the children in the neighbourhood for technical education, and, as far as I know, they work most admirably with the higher education committee of the county council. I know of no cases of friction, and, as far as I know, local wishes and aspirations are carried out. In the case that the hon. Member has in mind, where there is a dirty building, I hope that as the result of the Bill the building will become very much cleaner and brighter before many days are past. As regards keenness, there is very great keenness now in the district higher education committees so far as secondary technical education is concerned. I see every reason why there should be just as much keenness among local people and district higher education committees to make the instruction centres a success. I can assure him that it is my right hon. Friend's intention that there should be ample discretion given by way of delegation from the county councils to local authorities.

Mr. COVE: That will depend on the initiative of the county authority itself. It is the county authority which will be the responsible body, and if they do not desire to delegate, I presume that there is no power on earth to compel them to delegate. Am I right in that?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: That is so, but if you take the analogy of other forms of higher education, there is very ample delegation by country authorities to local authorities at present, and I imagine that without compelling them by statute but relying on voluntary action, as we have done in the past in secondary and technical education, we shall get the same keenness and the same co-operation. That being so, I suggest that the hon. Member should not press the Amendment, but should allow the same method of working to operate in connection with juvenile instruction centres as already operates between Part II and Part III authorities for higher education.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I am not quite sure where we stand with regard to the powers of delegation that are now exercised by Part II authorities to Part III authorities. In Walthamstow we come within the area of the Essex County Council as the Part II authority, we ourselves being the Part III authority. We have delegated to us now under the Education Act, 1921, and the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923, the administering of schemes. The Minister has two Amendment down, and I have been endeavouring to understand whether they concede the point that I am endeavouring to arise in a later Amendment of mine. There is a difference of opinion between two authorities on this matter, I being one, and my own Director of Education the other. It is probable, because of his more intimate experience of the administration of education, that he is right, and I am very anxious that he shall be right, but I have considerable doubt. The Minister's second Amendment says:
an authorised course shall in relation to such powers and authorities, be deemed to be a school.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If I permit the hon. Member to pursue this line of argument in relation to Amendments which are not yet before the Committee, those arguments cannot be repeated when the Minister's Amendments are moved.

Mr. McENTEE: The hon. Gentleman appeared to me to deal with the very point that is so closely associated with this Amendment, the Minister's Amendments and the one that I was hoping to move, though I understand that I shall not be permitted to do so. I want to know exactly what is to remain in the Bill as a consequence of all these Amendments.

Mr. HUDSON: Let us get to them, and I will explain.

Mr. McENTEE: It is not merely a matter of explaining. If the explanation does not happen to be satisfactory, I might desire an opportunity of voting against them. The whole point is whether the hon. Gentleman is really expressing the position as it is going to be after all the Minister's Amendments are carried. Will the county authorities still have the power that they have under the Education Act, 1921, of dele-
gating to a local authority such as my own powers under this Act, and could my authority, assuming that the county were willing to delegate powers, carry on the administration of these training centres? If the Minister will make that clear, I shall be very much obliged.

6.45 p.m.

Major HILLS: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education has made one of his usual charming speeches, but under it there lies a very deep question indeed, and I hope that he will forgive me if I plead for a few minutes on behalf of the rights of Part III authorities. Under Clause 13 the question arises as to whether county councils are or are not to be empowered to delegate the right to run juvenile instruction centres. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the fewer authorities employed the better, and I agree, but when you get towns with a very strong local life of their own, is it not right that they, and not the higher education authority, should be the authority to run the training centre? There is the case of Stockton-on-Tees, which has a population of 67,000 inhabitants. I believe that juvenile training centres are already in operation there including one run by the education authority—the Part III authority. I want the Government to concede, where there is an agreement between the county council and the education authority, delegation in those cases and in those cases only. I agree that the smaller county borough or urban district has no case for delegation, but when you get a local authority like Walthamstow with 132,000 inhabitants, or Hamilton with 39,000 the case is different. My answer to the first of the Minister's points is that the older of the smaller local authorities has a very distinct right to come in here as the authority to run the juvenile training centre.
His second point, I agree, at first sight, appears very strong. He says that the area of the smaller local authority does not correspond with an industrial area, and that the higher education committee is the proper authority. There, again, as the Mover of the Amendment said, a great many of the urban authorities and non-county boroughs are industrial in character and situated in counties which are rural in character. The work to be dealt with
by the Part III authority is more in keeping, situated in an industrial area, than if the whole county was an industrial area. That is so in many cases. The delegation would only be at the joint request of the county council and of the smaller authorities. The Parliamentary Secretary said that informal delegations at present exist, but I think that that does not come under the Part III authority. I urgently plead that where the two authorities agree, definite power should be given to a higher authority to delegate, and I would add that the consent of the Minister must always be required. The Minister knows well the difficulties of the question and the arguments which are used. The trend of modern administration is to fix the limit of the non-county borough fairly high, and you give to that authority powers which we formerly gave only to the county, or to the county borough. Where you get large non-county boroughs with populations of 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 or 100,000 or over, there is a strong case for delegation.

Mr. DENMAN: On a point of Order. I want to ask your advice, Captain Bourne, whether this Amendment means anything whatever. We are on a definition Clause which will read, if amended:
'Education authority' means a local education authority for the purposes of elementary and higher education.
An education authority can mean a local authority for the purposes of either elementary or of higher education, but it certainly cannot mean a local education authority for the purposes of both. If you try to read it into Clause 13 in that sense, it produces pure nonsense, and I submit, therefore, that the Amendment is out of order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendment was handed to me only a very short time before I called upon the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) to move it, but I understand that the point which he wished to raise was that in administering the training centres, what is commonly known as a Part III authority should be responsible as well as a Part II authority. I understand that that would be the effect of the Amendment if carried in respect of Clause 13, but whether Clause 13 would
still remain workable it is not for me to express an opinion.

Mr. A. BEVAN: It may be that the language of the Amendment does not give effect to the intentions of the Mover, but the important point is that we should try to extract from the Minister an agreement that at a subsequent stage the necessary alteration shall be made. That is the important point. The discussion having gone so far, it seems to be a piece of pedantry to point out this matter.

Mr. DENMAN: In that case I must really press my point of Order. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can give us his assistance.

Mr. BEVAN: On a point of Order—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) has already risen to a point of Order, and I must deal with one at a time.

Mr. DENMAN: My point of Order is that the whole Amendment is completely out of order. No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary can give assistance on this point. Does it mean anything to him, with his long experience of education, when he is told that an education authority means a local education authority for the purpose of elementary and of higher education? I submit that it means nothing at all.

Mr. COVE: Is it in order, Captain Bourne, to invite the Parliamentary Secretary to overthrow a ruling which you have already given? Is it extending the courtesy of debate to invite the Parliamentary Secretary to take up the task, which is a dishonourable one, after the ruling of the Chair?

Mr. DENMAN: It is an elementary rule of the House that an Amendment should make sense. If hon. Members fail to produce Amendments which make sense, I think that the Committee should pass on to the Amendments which do.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Very frequently the Chair has to invite the assistance of the Minister on various points.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Although the form of words might not be the correct one, it seems fairly obvious to myself and I think to the Committee that the intention of the Amendment was that the
powers of the Part II authorities should be extended by statute to the Part III authorities.

6.66 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: The hon. Gentleman who a little while ago addressed the Committee has perhaps not done entire justice to his case. He said that boundaries fixed by Part II and Part III authorities may cut across each other in the organising of training centres. I do not quarrel with him. It is easy for the Committee to visualise circumstances in which the number of juveniles outside the boundaries of the Part III authority would be inadequate for the formation of a training scheme of their own, and would have to be brought into the area of the Part III authority. Would it not be possible for the Minister to make an alteration in language to say that it should be a Part II or Part III authority as may be determined by the Minister? Obviously there would be circumstances in which a Part III authority would be the best authority to carry out the work.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: As I have already said, the Part II authorities can arrange for informal delegation to the Part III authorities.

Mr. BEVAN: My experience is, and I think it is the experience of most hon. Members who have knowledge of local administration, that local authorities cling jealously to their powers.

Mr. HUDSON: What about Walthamstow?

Mr. BEVAN: I think it is a general experience that they cling most jealously to their power. The point I wish to make is that the local givernment unit in Great Britain has been enlarged for purely financial reasons. The reason why the small local authority has grown into the large authority in the last 50 years is largely because of the desire to spread the burden over a wider unit of revenue raising, and it has followed no functional lines at all as far as we know. It has followed financial pressure. I do not wish to argue either for Part III or for Part II. We think that the Minister should give himself powers to organise a training school wherever it may be most desirable to do so. That is what I want, and I believe that the powers which the Minister is taking unto himself prohibits
him from doing this sort of thing, because if the county authority does not decree, the Minister cannot impose a new scheme on that authority.
I will reinforce this by a further point. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education said that the county authorities appoint district committees, but my experience is that a sub-committee of a county authority is a much more devitalised body than a committee of a Part III authority. The sub-committee always has to secure the approval of a county authority for anything it, does, and it is usually a body with no vitality at all, a perfunctory body. It has purely recommendatory powers to the county authority, is very often overridden, and in fact the director of education is often the committee. I want to plead for as much centralisation in educational administration as is consistent with efficiency. There is far too much centralisation now. Is it not possible for the Minister to reserve to himself the right to determine whether the authority for this portion of the Bill shall be the Part II or the Part III authority? We are asking for a small concession, and the power will be used in the best interests of the children themselves later on.

7.1 p.m.

Sir REGINALD BANKS: The constituency of the Borough of Swindon is one of those large industrial centres in the middle of a rural area which are naturally much concerned in this matter. It exercises a great many powers which are delegated to it by the county council: the choice of employment work under Section 107 of the Education Act; the administration of the Unemployment Insurance in the case of juveniles under the Act of 1933, and most of the higher education within the Borough of Swindon and the adjacent area under a block grant from the county authority. It has very little doubt indeed that the county council will be perfectly ready to delegate powers to it in connection with the work under this new Act, but it is far from clear that in the future the county council will be able to do so. There is no question that delegation has taken place in the past quite satisfactorily and harmoniously, but the Swindon Borough Council wants to feel quite sure that, if the county authority desires to delegate the work to be done under this new Act,
as we have every reason to suppose, it shall be able to do so. The question is one of such great importance that no ambiguity ought to be left. If the provision simply remains as a definition, the county authority might say that it was very sorry, that it would like to delegate powers under the new Act, but could not do so because it was not properly so constituted.

Mr. HUDSON: I can give that assurance to my hon. Friend. There is no question that the authority has power to ask the Part III authority to act for it informally.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. MACMILLAN: The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment suggested that considerable difficulty might be experienced by certain industrial districts in the rather enervating sphere of a county council with almost entirely rural interests; but there are possibly a large number of industrial boroughs which might wish to free themselves from the perhaps rather too stimulating control of a county council—for instance, in Durham. It is a remarkable fact that, owing to the attitude which the Central Government has now taken for many years to prevent by any possible means the formation of new county boroughs, there are a large number of industrial boroughs which ordinarily would have found themselves in a position in which they would have enjoyed equal status. I should not like to go as far as the Mover of this Amendment in saying that the non-county borough should have an absolute right to demand that the authority shall be Part III rather than Part II.

Mr. COVE: I am perfectly prepared to accept the idea of voluntary delegation.

Mr. MACMILLAN: I am perfectly satisfied with the voluntary delegation of power, but I would ask the Minister between now and the Report stage to look further into the matter, because it affects the very life of these boroughs. The constituency I represent some time ago started an excellent scheme on the lines of the Bill and indeed the Government is two or three years behind us. If the Minister decided that a certain delegation of power was to take place, it would be quite fair as between the authorities under Parts II and III, and
if no agreement could be come to between them, the Minister should take powers to make a decision after considering the facts. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that suggestion before the Bill becomes law.

Amendment negatived.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 26, line 19, at the end, to insert:
and for the purposes of the powers conferred on education authorities by Sub-section (3) of Section fourteen of this Act but not for any other purpose includes a local education authority for elementary education under that Act.
The object of this Amendment is to make quite sure that the officers of elementary education, authorities shall be officers of a "local education authority for the purposes of higher education" in connection with the enforcement of school attendance between the ages of 14 and 16, and that they shall carry out the duties which might otherwise be regarded as coming outside the Education Act, 1921. In the ordinary course of events the higher education authorities would make any necessary financial arrangements with the Part III authority.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. COVE: The Parliamentary Secretary was absolutely stubborn about our previous Amendment. The hon. Gentleman by his side might, if he had been in charge, have permitted it to us, but we have a very obstinate Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. It is therefore remarkable that after refusing our request that the Part III authority should consult their ratepayers in organising new centres, he is prepared to come forward now with the proposal that they shall use the "Whippers-in," as we used to call them at school, in order to get the children into the instruction centres. The proposal is that the county authority shall commandeer the attendance officer, the man who is going to whip them into the centre. That man is employed by the Part III authority; it is giving the county authority the power to use him to drive the children into the juvenile instruction centre. It is a piece of bare-faced effrontery to these local education authorities, denying them the right to take a live and real interest in the centres and then using them for the worst piece of work they could possibly do.
Is this a testimony to the efficiency and pride that the hon. Member feels in the ability of the county authorities to get the children into the juvenile instruction centre? If there is all this reliance on the county authority as the best authority for doing all this, if the county authority is the authority that can organise the centres where the children will go without any pressure at all, why does the hon. Member come down to the House and ask that the Part III authorities shall provide them with a policeman to drive the children into the centres? If I were trying to divide the Committee, I should divide it on this Amendment as a protest against this stiff and deadly obstinate attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary and against putting this worst of all duties on to the Part III authority after denying them the right to do the real educational work and organise these centres.

Mr. A. BEVAN: If it be necessary for the Part III authority to employ additional attendance officers, who is to pay their salary? Is the county to have the right to compel the Part III authority to increase its rates in order to discharge the function that properly belongs to it? I can see endless friction arising between the two authorities under this proposal that one authority should pay the officer and the other should use him.

Mr. HUDSON: In the unlikely contingency that the hon. Member has in mind, the higher education authority would undoubtedly be responsible for the expense involved.

7.13 p.m.

Major HILLS: Does not this proposal cut out the possibility of delegation to the Part III authority, and are the Part III authorities included in the terms of the Amendment? It excludes, by implication at any rate, the power of informal delegation with which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education made considerable play, because they are not to be included "for any other purpose." It goes further than we were before, and the Part III authorities are worse off. Will my hon. Friend consider the matter between now and the Report stage? Of course, if he can go further we should prefer it, but will he agree not
to give them this back-hander which knocks them out of account?

Amendment agreed to.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 26, line 40, at the end, to insert:
(3) The powers and duties of education authorities under this Part of this Act shall be exercised and performed as part of their powers and duties under the Education Act, 1921, and the powers and duties under that Act of local education authorities for the purposes of higher education shall extend to authorised courses; and accordingly an authorised course shall, in relation to such powers and duties, be deemed to be a school.
This Amendment is designed to secure that education authorities shall have the power to extend to these children those services which are laid down in the Education Act, and, in particular, to place their medical service at the disposal of the juveniles who attend the juvenile instruction centres.

Mr. COVE: We on this side of the Committee would welcome those words, but do they cover the right to provide school-feeding for these children? We welcome the provision of medical services being extended to these centres, but we should be still more pleased if the powers were taken here to enable local education authorities to feed the children as well.

Mr. HUDSON: I will look into the matter and let the hon. Member know for certain, but I am nearly sure that these powers do not cover the provision of a school meal. They cover the cost of travelling, of enforcing attendance and of the medical services.

Mr. COVE: Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider taking powers to enable the Ministry to be certain that the local education authorities may provide school feeding? It would be very much appreciated if school feeding could be provided.

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member knows very well that that opens up a very wide field and has all kinds of repercussions, and I cannot give a promise now.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Government are taking powers of punishment, but they are not taking powers that would be advantageous to the child. One of the things that Act for feeding of school children was meant to overcome was the lack of
food and to make it easy for a child to attend school. Having taken the powers of punishment the Government, in common fairness, ought to take all the powers of decency alongside it. They take the power of punishment without giving the attraction of the school at the same time. It is unfair to take over punishment Clauses and to leave out the feeding of little children. I hope the point will be pressed.

Mr. HUDSON: Where children are unemployed and their parents are unemployed there will be, under Part II, considerable scope for questions of this kind to be raised and dealt with.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I gather that the Minister wants to give an opportunity to children from 14 to 16 years of age to enjoy the benefit of medical services in these centres. Is it proposed by the new Amendment that all the advantages that go to children up to the age of 14 shall go to children between the ages of 14 and 16? If there is to be the power of punishment, will there be also the advantages which children attending elementary schools up to the age of 14 now enjoy?

7.18 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I strongly advise those who have raised the point to allow the Amendment to stand as it is because, in spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, it is perfectly obvious from these words that the local education authority will have the same power in regard to school meals in the junior instruction centres as they have in the elementary schools. That is obvious, and the least said about it the better.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: We were under the same impression, but we have had a statement from the Front Bench that that will not be so.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: He did not say that.

Mr. BEVAN: I should like the point to be made clear. The Noble Lord is not in charge of the Bill. Can we have a clear answer from the Parliamentary Secretary? Will the children who go to the training centres, if they need meals,
have the same right to meals as children who attend the elementary schools?

Mr. HUDSON: With all respect to the opinion of my right hon. Friend the Noble Lord, I think that he is wrong. I am glad that he has raised the point, for if he is right we shall have to move an Amendment on the Report stage, because our intention is to do nothing of the kind.

Mr. BEVAN: This is a point of first-class importance. What we now understand is that it is the Government's intention that if a child attends a training centre at the age of 14 and needs meals he shall not obtain them. That is the intention of the Government. It is a monstrous proposition. If a child attends an elementary school up to the age of 16 it can have meals if it needs them. The Government propose that if a child leaves school and fails to find employment and goes to be trained in a training centre it shall not have food, if it needs food. Many of these boys and girls may have to travel distances from their homes. School feeding is taking place at the present time in regard to the children of parents who are in employment. The Act said that a child shall be fed if, through any physical consequences of under-nourishment, it cannot take advantage of the education provided. Is it clear that the Government do not intend that these children shall be fed? If so, and if it is clear from these words that the children are not to be fed, will the Parliamentary Secretary give a promise that, on the Report stage, the necessary alterations will be made in the Bill so that the children may be fed? If what he says is true I can promise him that he will have a lot of trouble on the Report stage. There are boys and girls in my constituency who are suffering from grave under-nourishment, and the Parliamentary Secretary is not going to be permitted to take those children to training centres and try to teach them if they are not fed properly. I can promise him a big pocket of trouble on the Report stage.

7.23 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I hope the Minister will enlighten us. The Necessitous Children Act would apply except that the Government are going out of their way to annul its provisions. It is an obligation now upon every local educa-
tion authority to see that no child should from hunger be unable to take advantage of its education, and I agree with the Noble Lord that that condition would apply under this Bill except that the Government are going out of their way to put in a special Clause.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I have no reason whatever to anticipate that any child attending these centres will suffer from lack of meals. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The centres are not the same things as schools. In the great majority of cases the children will only attend for about 15 hours a week, and they will be able to get home for their mid-day meals. Where they cannot get home for their mid-day meals arrangements will be made for the meals to be cooked at the centre. In the case of a child whose parent is in work, presumably, there will not be a case for school feeding; but in the case of an unemployed child attending the centre if that child is the child of an unemployed parent and if the conditions and resources of the parent are such that the child is in need, he will be able to go to the Unemployment Assistance Board and get an adequate amount. There can, therefore, be no justification for the suggestion that any children attending these centres will not be able to take advantage of the instruction available owing to their being underfed. The centres are not the same as schools and the children who attend them will not be in the same position as children attending schools. With that explanation I hope the Committee will realise that the decision come to by the Government is, in all the circumstances, reasonable.

Mr. LAWSON: Does the Parliamentary Secretary not know that there are junior instruction centres now where feeding takes place and where charitable organisations have to put money down in order to feed the children?

Mr. HUDSON: That may conceivably be the case. If the hon. Member assures me that it is so, I take his word for it, but I would point out that Part II of the Bill has not yet come into operation, nor have the circumstances under which the parent of a child between the age of 14 and 16 gets assistance.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: There are thousands of cases that will not come under Part II. Thousands of children will be left out. I ask the Government to reconsider this matter very seriously, not merely from the human aspect but from the point of view of making the instructional centres more successful than they are likely to be. The provision of a mid-day meal would make a tremendous difference to the spirit in which the children would go to the centres, and the spirit in which their parents would send them, and it would certainly make a tremendous difference to the work of the teacher in endeavouring to do this educational work. If it is true, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, South-West (Sir P. Harris) says that the Ministry of Labour has gone out of its way to deny this provision for the children, I would ask them seriously to reconsider it, so that all the opportunities available now for children attending school shall be available for the young people attending the instruction centres. I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) that unless the Minister can, before the Report stage, satisfy us on this subject—

It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th December, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments proposed by the Government of which notice had been given and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

CLAUSE 32.—(Application of Part I to Scotland).

Amendments made: In page 27, line 7, leave out from "A" to "reference" in line 8.

In line 9, at the end, insert:
shall be substituted for any reference in section thirteen to the Board of Education.

In page 28, line 8, after "accordingly," insert:
provided that it shall not be competent in any proceedings under this sub-section to pronounce a sentence of imprisonment.

In line 27, leave out Sub-section (8), and insert:
(8) Section thirty-one shall have effect as if the definition of 'Education authority,' in Sub-section (1), were omitted, and as if for Sub-section (3) there were substituted the following Sub-section:
(3) The powers and duties of an education authority under this Part of this Act shall be exercised and performed as part of their duties under the Education (Scotland) Acts, 1872 to 1928, and shall

include, in relation to the provision of authorised courses, in pursuance of Section thirteen of this Act—

(a) the like powers and duties as are conferred or imposed by the said Acts with regard to the provision of schools;
(b) the power and duty conferred by Section four of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908; and
(c) power to pay travelling expenses necessarily incurred by persons required to attend authorised courses."—[Sir G. Collins.]

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 322; Noes, 66.

Division No. 104.]
AYES.
[7.35 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh
Graves, Marjorie


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Albery, Irving James
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Grigg, Sir Edward


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Christle, James Archibald
Grimston, R. V.


Apsley, Lord
Clarke, Frank
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Aske, Sir Robert William
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Atholl, Duchess of
Colfox, Major William Philip
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Conant, R. J. E.
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cook, Thomas A.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cooke, Douglas
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Balniel, Lord
Copeland, Ida
Harbord, Arthur


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hartland, George A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cranborne, Viscount
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Craven-Ellis, William
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Crooke, J. Smedley
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cross, R. H.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Crossley, A. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Bernays, Robert
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Denville, Alfred
Hornby, Frank


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Horsbrugh. Florence


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Blindell, James
Donner, P. W.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Borodale, Viscount
Doran, Edward
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Bossom, A. C.
Drewe, Cedric
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Boulton, W. W.
Duggan, Hubert John
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hurd, Sir Percy


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Dunglass, Lord
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Eady, George H.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Bracken, Brendan
Eden, Robert Anthony
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Jamieson, Douglas


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Elmley, Viscount
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Broadbent, Colonel John
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Ker, J. Campbell


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Knox, Sir Alfred


Buchan, John
Fleming, Edward Lascelies
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Burghley, Lord
Fraser, Captain Ian
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Burnett, John George
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Law, Sir Alfred


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Leckie, J. A.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Ganzonl, Sir John
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Lees-Jones, John


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Gledhill, Gilbert
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Glossop, C. W. H.
Levy, Thomas


Carver, Major William H.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Lewis, Oswald


Cassels, James Dale
Goff, Sir Park
Liddall, Walter S.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gower, Sir Robert
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd, Gr'n)


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Petherick, M.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Mabane, William
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Pybus, Sir Percy John
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Radford, E. A.
Stones, James


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Storey, Samuel


McKie, John Hamilton
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Strauss, Edward A.


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Strickland, Captain W. F.


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Rathbone, Eleanor
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Summersby, Charles H.


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Sutcliffe, Harold


Martin, Thomas B.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Templeton, William P.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Remer, John R.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Robinson, John Roland
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Milne, Charles
Ropner, Colonel L.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Mitcheson, G. G.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Train, John


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Tree, Ronald


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Morrison, William Shephard
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Moss, Captain H. J.
Salt, Edward W.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Munro, Patrick
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Nall, Sir Joseph
Savery, Samuel Servington
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Wells, Sydney Richard


North, Edward T.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Nunn, William
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Palmer, Francis Noel
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Peake, Captain Osbert
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Pearson, William G.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Peat, Charles U.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)
Withers, Sir John James


Penny, Sir George
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Percy, Lord Eustace
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)



Perkins, Walter R. D.
Somervell, Sir Donald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Lord Erskine and Mr. Womersley.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maxton, James


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfelt, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Batey, Joseph
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, Wilfred


Briant, Frank
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Alien


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cape, Thomas
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Rea, Walter Russell


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Harris, Sir Percy
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cove, William G.
Hicks, Ernest George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Holdsworth, Herbert
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Curry, A. C.
Janner, Barnett
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Daggar, George
John, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Dobble, William
Lawson, John James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
White, Henry Graham


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lunn, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilmot, John


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mainwaring, William Henry



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 33.—(Commencement, extent and citation of Part I.)

CLAUSE 34.—(Unemployment Assistance Board and Advisory Committees.)

7.46 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in page 29, line 7, after "Board," to insert:
each member of which shall be appointed by the Commons House of Parliament for a period not exceeding three years.
We have now come to the second part of the Bill which deals with the most afflicted portion of the unemployed. The Government propose to set up an Unemployment Assistance Board with very wide powers indeed. The object of the Amendment is to keep the appointment of the personnel of the board within the power and influence of this House. I question whether there is any parallel to the action that the Government are taking in appointing this Assistance Board and giving it these powers. The Statutory Committee and its powers we shall have some opportunity of dealing with indirectly, but this Assistance Board is lifted completely out of the influence of this House. The Government have taken particular care that the board shall not only be independent, but shall sit remote, beyond the reach altogether of Parliamentary influence and criticism.
There is a long history behind the section of the unemployed with which the new board will have to deal. There are something over 1,000,000 under transitional payment. That number has been with the country now for many years. It is the supreme problem that the country has to face. These are the long-term unemployed. Those of us who have been in this House for some years know that they first came under the heading of "uncovenanted unemployed." Those of us who have knowledge of the troubles and trials of past Debates know what problems arose at that particular time. Then there arose the question of the discretion of the Minister, and what he should do with the uncovenanted who were outside of insurance, whether he should give them benefit or not. The Minister had a rough time; he was the centre of criticism continually. Next there was found a way of saying, "If a man has had 30 stamps in the last two years he will get unemployment benefit under certain conditions." All that time there was increasing trouble over this section of the people who are now outside insurance.
I remember that in the 1927 Debates the one thing that gave us comfort was that the Minister of Labour then said, "Perhaps they will not be here with us very much longer. We believe that in
the next few years there will be about 6 per cent. of unemployed, and we are basing our calculations upon that anticipation." It has been nearer 16 per cent. than 6 per cent. over that period. The one thing that has impressed itself on the country as time has gone on has been that this long-term unemployed section has not only not diminished but has actually grown. For the whole of that period its woes have appealed to the country to such an extent that it would be almost true to say that they have made and unmade Governments. Not only is this the vexed question of the twentieth century here, but if one were to get down to the troubles of all the countries that are in turmoil to-day one would find that it is their problem too.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have no desire to hamper the hon. Member's argument. I fully realise that this Amendment, beyond dealing with the machinery of appointment of the board, raises a very wide issue. We have until 7.30 p.m. on the next day on which we sit to complete this Clause. I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee generally if we had a somewhat wider discussion on this Amendment than is actually covered by the wording of it, on the understanding that that discussion is not to be repeated on the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." If that is agreeable now I am not sure that it will not be for the general convenience. Is it agreeable to the hon. Member?

Mr. LAWSON: I am very much obliged for the suggestion. I am sure the Committee would wish to make sure that we discuss at any rate the fundamental part of this Clause durnig the next few hours and the coming half day. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will agree to the suggestion. The setting up of a board which has these powers is important. I was about to point out that in 1931 the present Government came into Office and did what it had promised in the country. It put the unemployed under public assistance committees. It proposes now to stabilise not only what it did in 1931, but to stabilise the method of dealing with the unemployed, that is to say to apply the means test. Under the transitional payment in the past few years the unemployed who have been subject to the
means test in the main have been under the public assistance committees. They have been subject to people who are their neighbours. The people who were ruling over the unemployed knew the men and women they were dealing with. They were elected in a democratic way. There was some influence that could be brought to bear upon those who were responsible for assessing the need of the unemployed and for the payment of their allowances.
I want the Committee to mark that fact, because it is very important in considering this matter. The public assistance committees were, roughly speaking, in close touch with the people whose transitional allowances they were administering, and they were subject to public influence because they were publicly elected. Yet in spite of those facts this method of dealing with the unemployed during the past two years has raised clouds of criticism throughout the country, and well it might, for we have arrived at a stage at which it has found expression in a public debate between the Minister of Health and the British Medical Association as to how much or how little a man can live on without being starved. It is very material to this discussion to remember just where we have arrived. We talk now about calories, and representative men have declared that numbers of unemployed who are being assessed under the present method are not getting sufficient to keep them in health.
That is the case where those who assess the needs are publicly-elected bodies. But where non-elected bodies are to do the work, it will be infinitely worse. The Durham County Council has had commissioners in the last two years, and I have just had a statement from the Minister of Health to say that the Commissioner has so assessed needs in that county that he is saving £300,000 a year compared with the administration of the public assistance committee. What the Minister proposes to do under this Bill is to set up a body that is immune from criticism, that is to be deliberately put on the Consolidated Fund Bill, the members of which will be in the position of judges, I understand irremovable. They will be half-a-dozen men, outside the influence of Parliament, and they are to assess the needs of a million people and their dependants.
Whatever the House of Commons does, the public of the country will not support that kind of thing. Indeed, if there have been results such as I have described under the public assistance committees, one may well look forward with fear to what is going to happen when this board is in operation. I know that they have to make a report once a year to Parliament and the Minister may say that there are regulations to be considered, but hon. Members know very well what the Minister is doing. The Minister is putting these men beyond the criticism of Parliament and, as far as possible, beyond the criticism of the country. Who will they be and where will they be? They are to appoint advisory committees if they think fit. If they appoint an advisory committee they will appoint only the people who suit them. They will take no other opinion about it. As to the powers of this board, most of the nine Clauses which follow this are taken up with stating those powers. They are to include powers in regard to deciding allowances, the payment of allowances, and the assessment of need, through their representatives, in various parts of the country. In addition they are to have the power of dealing with all the unemployed over 18 in regard to training. Sub-section (2) states:
The functions of the board shall be the assistance of persons to whom this part of this Act applies who are in need of work and the promotion of their welfare and, in particular, the making of provision for the improvement and re-establishment of the condition of such persons with a view to their being in all respects fit for entry into or return to regular employment.
I do not know that I can deal with their power of assessment of need further than to make a general reference to it. But they have also this power of training. This body is going to impinge upon the duties of other public bodies the public assistance committees for instance. Apart from assessing need and deciding allowances one of the most dangerous powers to be conferred upon them is this power as to training through the Ministry of Labour. I think they will be able under these provisions to make arrangements with local authorities and with other bodies and I understand that those other bodies are likely to include the social service organisations. We shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say upon that point. One of the dangers as I say, is this power to make arrangements with voluntary bodies out-
side the local authorities and there is also the danger of the establishment of test work in connection with this kind of training.
The Minister will help us very much by explaining exactly what other bodies are contemplated in this part of the Bill. Apparently it will be possible to send a man to be trained under some organisation such as those which are operating at the present time in semi-Government activities like the National Union for Social Service, and it will be possible for the board to arrange with those bodies and to set the unemployed a kind of test work in regard to which there is no guarantee as to the standard of wages that will be paid. That is all the more striking because the Minister is also asking us to give them powers for dealing with "specially difficult" cases. I can imagine what may happen when this body wishes to send some of these men to work under the National Union for Social Service in some of the scratch workshops that have been set up. Incidentally, I think this work was much better done when it was being done voluntarily, than it has been done since the Ministry of Labour made this practically a semi-Government institution. As I say, when the board proceed to send men into these workshops, if the men refuse because they think it is interfering with the work of other men, or with the trade union standard, or with the standard rate of the district, there is a possibility that these will be regarded as "specially difficult" cases.
So we are to have this board, with all these powers, beyond the reach of Parliament, beyond its criticism—its members as far as we can see irremovable—dealing with this great mass of people. They are taking over a problem which not only this Government, but Governments have failed to solve. The Government are saying in effect, "We have been at this long enough and the report of the commission makes it clear that the thing to do is to take this question out of politics." I dare say the Minister will justify himself on the ground that that is what the Royal Commission have said. But it is a new doctrine that a Government should model itself exactly on the findings of a Royal Commission.
I wish that had been the doctrine during the last 14 or 15 years. The chairman of this commission acted as chairman of a very famous compensation commission. I wish the Government had accepted the findings of that commission. We had the famous Sankey Commission and the miners were promised that its recommendations would be accepted in the letter and the spirit. When we are referred to the Royal Commission's findings in this case, it is just as well to recall the cases in which the findings of important commissions have been rejected by Governments, lock, stock and barrel. But we shall he told no doubt that the commission has advised that this question should be taken out of politics.
The Government do not pretend that there is any solution here. All they state is that they want to get the question out of the influence of politics. The means test is being stabilised. I know that the Solicitor-General if he replies will say that there are words in such and such a Clause which show an intention to modify the means test. All we can say is that the means test has operated for two years and we do not see in this Bill any reason for believing that there is going to be anything other than the means test in actual operation. All this is founded upon a test of need and we shall be interested to hear what change if any is going to be made. In the last two years, under the means test, the Government have taken £56,000,000 from the poorest part of our population. I wish Members from all parts of the country could only see the kind of people to whom this test applies. I repeat what I said on Second Reading. I have a suspicion that underneath all this and in the minds of certain people there is an idea that this 1,000,000 transitional unemployed are the kind of people who used to be called the unemployable, the doubtfuls, the cadging class. In my experience coming from one of the great industrial areas almost all these people are men and women of the finest character. They include some of our finest craftsmen. They are people who are almost heart broken because they cannot get work. No one who knows anything of the personnel concerned in this matter would doubt that fact for a moment. They are people who have been thrown out by machinery. They are the victims of lamentable conditions over which they have no control.
During the past few years they have been chivvied, investigated, and afflicted. Whether they were men and women who had been thrifty or otherwise, they have been subjected to microscopic investigation, which has had the effect of leaving great numbers of them with hardly the elementary means of life. Let nobody make any mistake about that. If some of these people could walk into this House and tell their story one after the other, I venture to say that the means test could not live a week, and yet the Government intend to apply it wholesale and to stabilise it practically for all time. Something like £48,000,000 a year is to be put into these people's hands for dealing with this particular section of the unemployed. The House of Commons is going to have very little control over it. It is putting those who administer it outside its influence and, as I say, in a position so strong that they are almost irremovable. They use this money, they sit in some remote part of the country, they have great masses of people serving them, and they are going to queue up decent men and women over the next few years, harry them and chivvy them, while no attempt whatever is made to face the real problem of providing work for them.
The Government now, instead of having any solution, have abandoned the reduction of hours and have abandoned the making of roads and bridges and all the rest of it, and they have no constructive proposal to make. They are tired of the criticisms of the past few years as a result of the operation of the means test, and now they put the unemployed into the hands of half-a-dozen people. I venture to say that the unemployed who are coming off the Poor Law and under the Government will wish they were back under the Poor Law before very long. It is a good principle that the State should take over the unemployed, but those of us who have demanded that for so many years never dreamed that they were going to be taken out of the hands of men publicly elected and put into the hands of half-a-dozen men responsible to nobody and beyond the bounds of criticism, who were to take these people and assess their needs, keep down their expenditure, and take them over at a time when the Government's administration under the transition has made the condition of the people one of which no person to-day is
proud and many are ashamed. There are people, it was revealed in the investigation that took place in Newcastle, living on much less than the standard set up by the Ministry of Health, and that is the result of the operation of the means test transitional payments during the past two years.
The Government may think they are getting rid of an awkward problem by putting it outside the influence of the House of Commons, but that very action will in the long run wreck this Government. The pity is, of course, that in the process a great mass of people have to suffer as they have been doing in the past few years. For these reasons, I move the Amendment, that the House of Commons at least should have the opportunity of considering the names of the people who are to be appointed and of limiting their appointment to three years. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to pin upon the country and upon this House a Clause of this kind, which, I understand, has the effect of appointing gentlemen who will be practically irremovable.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. WHITE: The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), when he said that these proposals were without precedent, said nothing less than the truth, and we think it is a lamentable fact that after nearly 20 years' experience in the administration of unemployment insurance and after the report of the Royal Commission, the Government should have adopted and brought before the House a proposal which has behind it no great body of public opinion, which is without precedent, and which has not even got the support of the Royal Commission which devoted so much time and consideration to this matter. We object to this proposal, in the first place, because we think it is unnecessary. We have been told in the course of these Debates that the needs of 85 per cent. of the insured population will be met by the contributory system of insurance, leaving the rest to be dealt with in some other way. That means that on the present basis something like 1,000,000 individuals, or, including their dependants, probably 5,000,000, will be handed over to the control of this new hoard. As has already been pointed out, the new board has powers which are comparable with those of the old Commissioners
appointed under the Act of 1834. They are largely freed from all Parliamentary control, and we say that that is a power which should not be entrusted to any men who are to have such almost unlimited control over the destinies, in the most intimate way, of so many people.
We also object to it because we think it simply will not work. The Government have turned their back upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission in regard to the local administration of the relief of the unemployed. The proposals of the Royal Commission were a sort of hybrid between the existing system and public assistance as we know it, and we have no liking for that particular recommendation. We think the Government would much better have adopted the suggestion in this regard of the Minority Report of the Royal Commission, because they at least envisaged a workable scheme, a unitary system relating the contributory system to the assistance outside insurance. But nobody could have foreseen or imagined that the Government would have set up a tripartite scheme, with three separate independent bodies dealing with those who are in need. The policies of all three must necessarily be antagonistic. The Assistance Board is a body which is more independent than any other body I can recall. I would mention, by the way, their unprecedented powers in finance. As I understand the Bill, there is nothing to prevent the new board expending, if they are so minded, not the £48,000,000 mentioned by my hon. Friend on the unemployed, but £60,000,000 or even £70,000,000; and, if they find that in estimating the needs of the unemployed on the basis of all their needs, such a sum is necessary, they will be doing their duty if they spend it, and they will come to the House of Commons and the House cannot possibly refuse to meet the bill. I mention that because it is a House of Commons point which the House of Commons should bear in mind when they are giving these vast powers to such a new board.
We had some discussion yesterday on the powers of the new Statutory Committee. It is quite clear that the action and policy of that Committee will have a profound effect on the policy and activity of the new board. For example, if the
Statutory Committee should decide that it is their policy to prolong the period of benefit in the interests of the unemployed rather than to pay increased benefits, they will be doing something to assist the finance and the policy of the new body under Part II. If, on the other hand, they decide that they will pay increased benefits rather than prolonged benefits, there again they will be having an important influence upon the authority set up under Part II. So far as I can see, in this Bill there is no co-ordinating authority to bring the policies of the two most important bodies into any sort of line.
On the other hand, the new board will find itself necessarily in antagonism with the work of the local authorities. There are at present some 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 persons who get assistance of some kind or another from the local authorities in the shape of medical assistance, children's meals and the like. It is the duty, and indeed a very powerful incentive, to local authorities to give that help, because they wish to keep families alive and afloat and out of the hands, as far as possible, of the public assistance authorities. By setting up this new authority the Government will remove the most powerful incentive which lies at the basis of the action of the local authorities in carrying out their duties. That, indeed, is a point to which we attach very great importance.
Then, again, the new board will be in constant conflict with the new authorities on the large number of borderline cases which still exist. There will be tens of thousands of such cases. They will be in conflict with the local authorities as to whether or not these cases should be clients of the board or clients of the public assistance committees. The machinery which is set up to decide these cases under this part of the Bill is in my opinion simply grotesque. Under unemployment insurance we have had a system which we understand, and which, although it does not give universal satisfaction, at all events works. We have the courts of referees sitting in every district; doubtful cases go to the Umpire; and under his jurisdiction case law is built up and uniformity of treatment is secured over all the districts.
Under this part of the Bill there will be 300 appeal boards set up by the board
itself consisting of their own chosen men, and no authority is suggested whereby there will be any connection between them or any uniformity of treatment. There must inevitably arise the same confusion, distress and dissatisfaction which we have had in administration in another direction with regard to the differences of treatment meted out by public assistance committees. There will be a number of families which will one week be under the board and the next week may find themselves under the public assistance committee. There will be great uncertainty in the minds of multitudes of people as to where they are to look for the assistance which is necessary to keep them alive. Then, indeed, they will find themselves in the most lamentable condition of not knowing where to go and to what authority to look for relief, and, as hon. Members in touch with industrial life to-day know, they will come to feel that every man's hand is against them. That is a very serious proposition.
There is another aspect of this matter to which I would like to draw the attention of the Committee, namely, the results of the operations of the new body under Part II upon the insurance scheme itself. It seems to me that from the moment the new board begins to make allowances on the basis of taking into account all the needs of the unemployed, they will begin, as they must do if they do their duty, and as we have been assured by the Parliamentary Secretary they will, to grant relief freely at rates above the benefit rates prescribed by the contributory scheme. They will operate a scheme, moreover, from which the Poor Law stigma has been removed, and if, as the Prime Minister said at Seaham, there is to be a humanised means test, it will be no deterrence whatever in keeping people away from a new scheme, and it is obvious that the operations of the board will make the unemployment scheme look simply silly. I see no escape from that.
I am surprised that the Minister has not jumped at the opportunity of accepting Amendments to the earlier part of the Bill for giving increased allowances to dependants and children and to get rid of the incubus of the annual payments of the debt, because it is clear that if he is set upon preserving the insurance part of this scheme, he must get the maximum
field of manoeuvre in order to protect the scheme; and in order to protect the scheme against the operation of the new board, it seems clear that he must restore the cuts and that he must also grant some increase in the children's allowances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street made some reference to the controversy which has arisen between the British Medical Association and the Ministry of Health. If one examines the two scales of those bodies, and the other scales which various authorities have considered and placed before the public, it is clear that, although the minimum scale may be applicable in the case of a man and his wife, the moment there begin to be children in the family there is no relation between the allowances under the contributory scheme or any other scheme and these scales. Therefore the Minister ought to take immediate steps to secure a field of manoeuvre, unless, indeed, the contributory scheme is to be done away with altogether. We think it is unfortunate that instead of having some unified system of dealing with this matter the Government have set up two bodies, entirely independent one of the other, without any co-ordinating authority, to be in separate offices, entrenched in two fortresses and at daggers drawn, administering policies which are conflicting in their aim and object. It would have been far better if the Government had adopted a scheme of central control under the Ministry of Labour, who are perfectly competent to do the work, using much of the machinery already in existence, and thus avoiding the duplication of appeals and means tests—because instead of there being one means test there will be two—and at the same time avoiding a great deal of unnecessary expenditure.
Those are the lines along which we think the Government ought to have proceeded. The Amendments we are putting on the Paper, and which may or may not be discussed, have the simple object of trying to make a workable scheme, because we believe the present board wil be simply a smoke screen. It will do great damage to the services being rendered already by local authorities. We think the only logical defence of the present proposals of the Government is that they are the beginning of a
great extension of the centralisation of most of the services now carried on by the local authorities. If this scheme is proceeded with, there will be the greatest possible administrative confusion, which will impinge on the work of the local authorities, damage will be done to the services which have been built up with so much care and a great many poor people will suffer.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: We are pleased to know that there is a greater opportunity for discussion to-night than we have had previously, because this Clause is to occupy the whole of this evening and part of another day, and the Deputy-Chairman has agreed that we shall have opportunities for further discussion of particular points. It is well that we should have this opportunity to discuss this very important part of the Bill. Part II takes a different line from what has ever been taken before. It takes a mass of men who have hitherto looked to this House for their protection and puts them into the hands of another body which which, to me, does not appear to be answerable to anyone, and our Amendment has been moved with the object of trying to get control of that body. We propose that Parliament shall have the power of appointing the members of that body. In that way we shall have an opportunity from time to time of deciding whether they are carrying out their duties as we think they ought to be carried out. According to the Bill they will be appointed by Royal Warrant, and we do not know the terms of the appointment or for how long they will hold office—it may be for a number of years.
The work they do will not be subject to criticism by anybody, as far as I can see, and it will appear to the people outside that Parliament is losing its authority and delegating its powers to others. I ask hon. Members opposite not lightly to allow that opinion to go out. We are putting about a million people—that is the figure given at the moment and it may increase; it all depends on that body whether it does increase or not—under the control of this particular body. We ought to remember that these million people are not the derelicts of society, from a physical point of view, because it is laid down that they
are to be persons who are capable of and available for work. We are dealing with able-bodied men who, through circumstances over which they have no control, have lost their statutory claim to benefit.
In approaching a question like this I always try to visualise myself in the position of the other man, because it is only by chance that one occupies a position in the House of Commons instead of being a poor man out of work. There may be men now out of work who are as capable of discharging the duties of a Member of this House as I am, and I always try to visualise the position in which I might be were it not for fortunate circumstances. If I were one of the number of men who cannot get work and, in consequence, could not keep my card stamped, what should I think of a Bill under which my elected representative said to me, in effect, "I am passing you over to another body of men who will have to judge what can be done for you, and how you will fare will depend on the kind of men they are"? They may be harsh-minded men or generous-minded men. We have reason to believe that the type is more likely to lean to the other side than our side, because in my past experience these commissioners, or whatever they may be, have not been drawn from the class from which I come, and they have a different outlook on life. If, as I say, I were a man in that position, I should feel that I was being handed over to a body of people who could not visualise the circumstances under which I had been brought to that pass, and I should feel that I should be treated in a way which was not fair.
In that way we may develop in the minds of our citizens the idea that democratic institutions are no longer of any use to them. Believe me when I say that "the man in the street" has great faith in what we call democratic institutions. He may not be treated fairly, but all the time he knows that he has an opportunity of approaching his Member of Parliament or his representative on the local authority, and so long as that is possible he feels that at least there is some possibility of obtaining redress. He gets sympathy from his Member or local representative, and he knows that if a multitude of complaints similar to his own are sent forward in the right direction that eventually a change will be brought about. This Clause is putting
those citizens who now have faith in their elected representatives under the control of people whom they will never see and never know. All they will know is the harsh conditions to which they will be subjected. Resentment will be bred from that, and bitter feelings will be engendered, and one can foresee a gradual decline of faith in all democratic institutions. I hope the Government will realise the importance of these considerations. The Government have set before themselves the policy of making the fund solvent by the dividing into two sections a number of people who, to me, are all equal. The Government say that on the one side they must have the people who can get work or who are out of work for a short period, and on the other side the unfortunate one, who are to be driven into a separate camp. They make no inquiry as to what has brought about the condition of these people, who are to be put somewhere else to be dealt with by a body of men whom they will never know or see.
This is a grave step for the House of Commons to take. Conservative Members like to believe that they are representatives of democracy. When we say from these benches that we stand for the working-class movement we are met by the reply: "We also are sent here by working-class districts." That trust ought to be recognised, but the unemployed men about whom I am speaking have a right to something more than recognition. They have a right to believe that you are not letting them be sent to gaol or to some other similar place. They are to be sent to camps—this Clause embodies the power to send them into camps—and to have all kinds of treatment meted out to them, and we shall not be able to ask questions here about their treatment. Those people will turn against the scheme and will say, "You have no right to leave us in this position."
In view of the outbreaks that are taking place in various parts of the world, there is a graver view. One is almost glad to think that this country has resisted that kind of thing up to the present time. I have always said that our politicians have been wise enough to see how far they can drive the people before giving way and giving the people something to keep them quiet. Our poli-
ticians have shown sagacity in that, and we have been able to keep clear of outbreaks, but the step that we are taking to-night will, to my mind, lead us to a position that might bring about the kind of thing that is happening in other countries. I know very well what my attitude would be if I were one of those unfortunates, and if I were being driven to one of these camps. There would be nothing to stop me from leading an outbreak in order to show what I thought about it. If I feel like this, the man in the street must feel what I feel, and I appeal to the Government: "Do not let go of this safety valve." The House of Commons is the safety valve for our people. They believe that they can get redress from the House of Commons. If we agree to Clause 34, we agree to something which I believe every one of us will live to regret.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I wonder whether the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) realises—I rather suspect that he does not—that the Amendment which he has moved is entirely destructive of the central principle of Part II of the Bill. That is why I agree with him; I am very anxious to destroy the principle of Part II, and I think that this is a very good place to begin. The question that we are asking ourselves in Part II, and especially in Clause 34, is whether we should continue to represent our constituents or not upon one of the most important things, if not the most important thing, that concerns most of them, of all things in this life. From time to time we are concerned in this House with great and far-reaching matters, such as those which have to do with India, Austria, France and Germany, and we very rightly pay the greatest attention to them. I have noticed that the Government are often asked this kind of question: "Before the Government come to any decision on this matter will they give an undertaking that they will first consult the House," and the Prime Minister is very anxious to say, "Yes, I will gladly give this undertaking and with a general spirit of good will between ourselves and everybody else we shall reach a satisfactory conclusion." Then everybody is quite happy.
It appears that there is one matter upon which there is to be no undertaking to consult the House in any effective
measure. I add those words because I am aware that other parts of the Bill say that there is to be some kind of control, which I have always thought amounted to very little. In effect, what the board decide, is to be done. That is the whole object of the proceedings under Part II. The sinister words, "taking this question out of politics," contain the most ridiculous suggestion that I have ever heard. If you take this question out of politics you justify the assertions of most of the cynics, of whom there are so many at this time, who say that politics are a sham. If you take out of political decision the things that concern the lives of the people most, you are playing a game with them.
I ventured to say yesterday on Clause 17, upon which the matter arose perhaps less than it does to-night, that we were deciding a very important constitutional question. As the work of Parliament becomes, as I freely admit it has become, too much to be discussed altogether upon the Floor of the House, various devices by means of committees and otherwise inside and outside the House have been suggested. What kind of subject are we to regard as of such a nature that it ought to be put on to somebody else? The last thing that I would devolve is this matter of the condition of the people, with which we are dealing here. We are allowed a fair latitude in this Debate, but I should not think of discussing the details of the means test under this Amendment. We have, however, to realise that the whole point of Clause 34 is that there is a body which will decide how the means test is to be administered in future. For so many people that is the very essence of their lives. There is very little else that matters in the world at the present time unfortunately, and they are bound to centre upon that. I think that Shakespeare anticipated the means test when he put into the mouth of Shylock the words:
You take my house, when you do take the prop
That doth sustain my house; you take my life,
When you do take the means whereby I live.
That is very literally what is being done in this country at the present time in various ways which are under the control of some kind of elected people in the localities. To judge by my own post bag, I am supposed to have some sort of con-
trol of it, because my constituents very often write to me, as they do to other hon. Members. That apparently is all wrong and is a nuisance that is to be done away with. We are to have a position in which the letters, if they are sent at all, will be addressed to some obscure body which will be like the old lion's mouth at Venice. People put in accusations, and nobody knew what happened to them. That is going to happen now. We are to be saved a lot of trouble. If I were considering the position merely from my own point of view, I might indeed thank the Government for relieving me of a certain part of my responsibility.
There are many members of local authorities who at last will have this answer to make: "You have forgotten the Unemployment Act passed by this Government. It is quite true that I could have done something for you, but you have now to realise that, although I may be a member of an advisory body, my functions are purely advisory, and that the final decision is taken somewhere else." Everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds for all elected representatives everywhere—for everybody, except for the unemployed. They are to be deprived of what, in the British character especially, is a very considerable safety valve, the power to make a complaint. The complaint may not be received, but at any rate the complainants feel that something is being done, and that they are being treated as human beings and not simply as case No. 6405, or whatever it may be. There is personal contact with somebody whom perhaps they have voted for, or more probably have voted against—I do not mind which it is—but who at any rate believes himself to be in the position of their representative, local or national. That means a lot, and when you take away a safety valve of that kind you are doing something which is a great deal more than the immediate physical effect upon whether these people have enough to eat or not, though that, Heaven knows, is as important a matter as we might discuss. There is a psychological effect as well. These people will now feel that they are under the control of something which to them will be a machine. It may work out in practice to be a just machine; I do not wish to prejudge anything; I only wish to say that, from what I have seen of the sort of guiding principles that are laid
down in this Bill for the administration of the means test, they do not, as far as they go, seem to me to be much more than a standardisation of the practice of rather harsh local authorities at the present time. I do not get much hope from that. But the point is that we have no security. These people may turn out to be angels of light and sympathy, but we have no right to assume it; we have no right to lay down our own responsibilities, to make the matter as good as possible.
I feel that the point which has been made with regard to the inter-relation of the two parts of the Act is correct. Undoubtedly they will act one upon the other, and I am afraid that the experience will be that Part I will depress Part II—that this body which we are now setting up will be afraid to make the administration of Part II too generous, because those who are responsible for the administration of Part I will say, "You are making our administration foolish, and we cannot have that." The superiority of the insured contributor must always be preserved, and so those who are not in insurance will be depressed below their real needs, because otherwise they might be doing rather better than those who are in insurance. That, to my mind, is a very real danger. I have never objected to a needs test as long as it was a real assessment of needs, taking all needs properly into account. If that were so, I do not believe that any Member of the House would ever have objected to a needs test at all. But I am afraid that here we are losing our grip on that very matter. We have seen the rather cynical kind of discussion which can go on in the Press between various bodies as to what a man's or a woman's or a child's needs really can be reduced to. We ought to keep our control of that. If we do not, I feel that we shall come to this, that it will no longer be considered much of an honour or privilege or responsibility to be elected to the Commons House of Parliament. Rather, if we wish to have a real effect upon the lives and destinies of our fellow countrymen, had we better either seek ourselves dishonourable graves or get elected to one of these committees or boards, where we shall have a great deal more power, and, as it seems to me, a great deal more security of tenure.

9.0 p.m

Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: I do not think that any Member of this Committee would be disposed to quarrel with the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) when at the opening of this discussion he stressed the immense importance of this particular question at the commencement of the consideration of Part II of the Bill; nor would anyone, I think, be disposed to quarrel with him in the deserved tribute which he paid to the character of the unemployed as a whole. He did refer to the days when those people who were without work were frequently referred to as unemployable, and I desire from this side of the Committee at once to support what he said when he stressed the fact that the vast majority of those people who will be dealt with under Part II of the Bill are among the finest of our race.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, and, indeed, the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) also, painted a very gloomy picture of the situation as it will be if the problem of unemployment is dealt with as proposed in Part II of the Bill. I think, however, that any unemployed man from a foreign country, listening to this Debate to-night, would be inclined to wonder what all the controversy was about, and would be inclined to wish that he too had some opportunity of coming within the ambit of the unemployment insurance machinery which this country has built up since the War, and which we are endeavouring to-night to consolidate and improve. How pleased they would be, for instance, in the United States of America if it were possible for a controversy to take place as to whether the unemployed should be supported by a local authority or by the State. They would be very pleased if such a controversy were possible there.
I agree, however, with the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) when he reminded the Committee just now of our responsibility in the House of Commons with regard to this subject, and of how hon. Members, on whatever benches they may sit, were, with very few exceptions, sent here by majorities of working-class electors, and have upon them that responsibility. The Committee is now engaged, as I see it, in endeavouring to frame the best insurance system that we
possibly can for the unemployed of this country. After all, this subject is one which was postponed and shelved by hon. Members opposite when they were in office. They appointed the Royal Commission upon whose recommendations this Bill is so largely based, though of course one is not going to say that they were therefore committed to adopting any report of any Royal Commission when it was presented. This is not a question on which one Government of another can be put in the dock and accused of being responsible.
One of the chief causes of controversy mentioned by the hon. Member opposite, and, I think, also by hon. Members below the Gangway, was the proposal to take the administration of the able-bodied unemployed who have run out of benefit out of the hands of elected representatives on the local authorities, so that it will no longer be possible for the unemployed man to go to his local councillor and make complaint of the way in which this system is being administered. Why is it necessary for His Majesty's Government to make this proposal? Reference has been made to the controversy in the Press about figures produced by the Ministry of Health on the one hand, and by the British Medical Association on the other; but there have been areas—and I represent one of them myself—where the party opposite, when placed in office on the local council, have refused to administer any public assistance whatever. There is no room there for controversy about calories—

Mr. PALING: Where is that?

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: Sheffield—or about the standard of living. When, in 1932, they were for the first time in many years removed from office, the Socialist party in Sheffield refused absolutely to man the public assistance committee, and the whole work was left to the other representatives on the council, in the hope that they would receive the opprobrium of doing this very difficult public work. When it is possible for a situation like that to be created, it surely is not for hon. Members opposite to complain of the supersession of local representatives in this particular work. It is, of course, true that the whole question of dealing with the un-
employed is a political question, but I see nothing in this Bill which prevents the House of Commons from giving guidance, and even instruction, to this board as to the treatment of the unemployed and as to the scales which they are to receive. They will be instructed, I dare say, to carry out various well known and established trade union principles which apply in the case of funds that they have built up carefully over a number of years.

Mr. CURRY: Will the hon. Member give us the part of the Bill where the power is given to this House to give those instructions?

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: I should not have given way if I had thought the hon. Member was going to ask so obvious a question, because he knows perfectly well that the regulations have to be passed by this House before they can operate, and he knows, or should know, that undoubtedly the formation of those regulations will be very largely in the light of the discussions that have taken place in the House during the various stages of the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are an optimist."] Someone was talking just now about the decline of Parliamentary prestige. I think it likely that, in drawing up the regulations, great attention will be paid to views expressed, particularly from the back benches of the House. While this is an important change in the machinery of unemployment insurance, I see nothing that takes out of the hands of Parliament the ultimate control of this matter. I believe it is a great experiment with new machinery upon which we are entering, and I believe when it is in operation the Government will receive the thanks of the country for their efforts.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. CONANT: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment covered a very wide field, but there was one part of his speech to which I took some exception. That was when he seemed to assume that the body the method of whose appointment we are now deciding would necessarily have no real human concern for the unemployed. He suggested that they would act entirely contrary to the interest of the unemployed and apparently be prejudiced in their views. Of course, we have not yet decided even as to their
method of appointment. It seems to me that, if one is going to approach the setting up of a new form of service of this magnitude with that prejudiced view, one is not likely to reach a very fair conclusion. The Amendment raises the most important point, whether this body shall be appointed by this House or by Royal Warrant. In effect what it comes to is whether they should be an elected body or whether they should be appointed, whether they should be influenced indirectly by political considerations or whether they should be, not outside politics—I do not think it would be advisable that such a body should be outside politics—but whether they should be as far as possible immune from political interference as they would be if appointed by Royal Warrant. The hon. Member said they would be completely out of the influence of the House of Commons and immune from criticism. His knowledge of Parliamentary procedure is far greater than mine, but it was stated on the Second Reading that there are four definite occasions in the year when the detailed activities of the board can be discussed besides the ordinary Motion for Adjournment and Votes of Censure. There is the Ministry of Labour Vote. Presumably, as the board is under the direction of the Ministry of Labour, their activities should be discussed upon that Vote.

Mr. LAWSON: Their salaries are not on the Ministry of Labour Vote at all.

Mr. CONANT: But the activities of the board are under the influence of the Ministry of Labour. It is really a question for Mr. Speaker to decide, but I should imagine that their activities should be discussed upon that Vote. They could certainly be discussed upon the Vote for the Unemployment Assistance Board, upon the Consolidated Fund Bill, and the Appropriation Bill and, of course, there is the annual report of the board. It is not fair to say that they are immune from the criticism or outside the influence of this House. In fact, it is possible to pay close attention to their activities, and, if we think they are not behaving fairly, we can very soon bring them to heel. When one considers the nature of the task that they are going to undertake, it is essential as far as possible that they should be placed outside political influence. After all, up to
the present the administration of transitional payments has been by bodies elected by local government electors, whereas it is suggested that they should be elected by the House, but still the principle is the same. The fact that so many of those elected members have refused to carry out their task indicates that the system has not been altogether successful in the past. A task of this magnitude, requiring the administration not only of financial assistance but of training facilities, which are to my mind far more important than the administration of cash assistance to those outside insurance, should be placed as far as possible away from the influence of politics.

Mr. LOGAN: Is the hon. Member not aware that most of the bodies that refused did so because it was an inhuman system?

Mr. CONANT: It does not matter to my case whether they refused because they had not time to do the job or because they thought they would become unpopular by doing it. They did refuse, and that is really all that matters, and the system of working Unemployment Assistance Boards as elected bodies has not been successful. Therefore, it seems to me that bodies immune from political interference of this nature would have a far better chance of proving successful. It is a mistake to assume that this is a purely economic or Poor Law service. It is, as far as I can see, solely an industrial service. It is the first duty of this board to retain the employability of those with whom they are dealing, and it is their second task to provide financial assistance where it is needed, and they are far more fitted for those tasks if they are outside the influence which has wrecked the scheme in the past. My only desire is to see that the service shall be administered in the real interest of those who are outside the insurance scheme and not merely, as in some instances in the past, in order to obtain electoral support for those who have administered it.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I have been prompted to take part in these deliberations because of the honesty of the last speaker. The hon. Member said that he was not concerned as to the reason why administration was not properly carried out from a constitutional point of view by members of accredited elected bodies.

Mr. CONANT: From the point of view of my case.

Mr. LOGAN: The question of the responsibility or irresponsibility of the duly elected guardians has been brought up. Because some of them had a heart and felt that it was not necessary that they should carry out what the law laid down, but that each individual should be dealt with on his merits, they were removed from their position. The question of segregation seems to be one of the determining factors in this Bill. This is the first time within my knowledge of insurance, and of the Poor Law and public assistance, that the line of demarcation is to be applied in this manner. You are going to bring two classes of people into being—the genuinely unemployed who are entitled to benefit, and the genuinely unemployed who are no longer entitled to anything, the latter class being dealt with by the public assistance committee, a body able to make a microscopic examination of every case that comes before it. The human touch which helps to make the whole of mankind understand that there is a fellow feeling when a person is in want and despair is to be taken away, and under Part II of the Unemployment Bill you are going to have something entirely different. It is stated that you are going to remove the stigma of pauperism. What a false cry this is to those who do not know of the sting in this Measure.
It is stated that you are going to take the unemployed away from poverty and the stigma of pauperism, and that this sort of thing is no longer to be administered by members of public assistance committees. You are going to set up a wonderful machine. You deliberately state in this House, "We are only fashioning this machine, because we now have power and authority, and are going to settle the problem, if we possibly can, so that future Governments will no longer be troubled with a million or a million and a-half of unemployed." Some hon. Gentlemen in this House find it rather difficult to answer the unemployed. The House of Commons are being told in 1934 that the function for which we appealed to the people is to be taken from our hands, and that we must only come to this House as a registering machine in regard to our opinions. I have never been a mere registering machine. I have
never been automatically worked, and I do not intend in a British House of Commons, though the odds may be 10 to one against us, to refrain from expressing an opinion from the Labour benches in regard to this iniquitous plan now before the House. The day of retribution must certainly come to every Member of this House when he will have to make an appeal to Caesar. The people will certainly ask them what they have done with regard to their administration, and their answer will be: "We were afraid of the voice of the people."

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Speak for yourself.

Mr. LOGAN: I am speaking for myself. I take it that the hon. Member is not in agreement and therefore—

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: I am not afraid to tell the people what I think, and I am not afraid of losing my seat.

Mr. LOGAN: I do not wish to appear in any way impertinent, and I do not wish to apologise to anyone in the House for putting my point of view. Part II of the Bill distinctly sets up a body over which this House will have no control. It almost seems incredible in 1934 that a National Government, with a majority of 10 to one, have not the courage of their convictions to take control of the affairs in this Bill. They are going to pauperise the nation more than it has ever been pauperised before, and are not going to allow any expression of the grievances of these men and women. You will no doubt have, as you had a case in London last week, deaths arising from want of nourishment. It was my unfortunate experience on the board of guardians to learn of a case in the city of Liverpool where a child had died at its mother's breast, and the doctor found that it had died from want of nourishment. Relief had been refused in the city of Liverpool. This is not box clap-trap; it is actual fact which occurred in a city like Liverpool.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: I understood from an earlier statement of the hon. Member that he thought that the present system provided a sympathetic local knowledge of individual cases, but the cases he has stated hardly bear that out.

Mr. LOGAN: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not also hear my observation that even under systems which receive personal attention, this sort of thing did occur in the city of Liverpool. The Government are to constitute a body with plenary powers which is to be responsible to no one. Should we ever get to know of its abuses. Every hon. and right hon. Gentleman in this House has the right to guard the prerogative of his position in this House. Hon. Members should retain their honesty and prestige as Members of this House by being prepared to guard against any of the evils which might arise by allowing these matters to pass out of their authority. Because of that, because I know that not on these benches only, but on your benches also there can be found honourable men, I feel that when the appeal is made and when a case is made known to you, justice will be done. I ask you to accept this Amendment, because I feel that in its provisions you have the salvation of supervision and the right of maintaining that all deserving cases shall receive at your hands the right and proper treatment.

9.26 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY: I do not intend to detain the Committee very long, and I must confess, and hope for the Committee's indulgence, that I have not attended this Debate from the beginning. The case which has been made out by the speech to which we have just listened, and the gravamen of the charge against this proposal, is one to which I should like to make some reply. Democracy always breaks down when it forgets its necessary limitations. If there is one constitutional principle which the experience of democracy has demonstrated, it is the danger of allowing any elected persons to exercise personal patronage. It has been the experience of every democracy, notably that of the United States of America, that personal patronage exercised by elected persons is the source of the worst corruption that civilised government has ever known. It is true that in this country, with our supreme illogicality we have succeeded, for a short period only, in having elected local authorities which have exercised, and still exercise to-day, large patronage without any great evil results. Any of us, however, who know the local authorities know that that system is always trembling on
the verge of undesirable influence. Let us realise that public assistance—the Poor Law—has always been in that position. For the last hundred years it has always involved the exercise of personal patronage by elected persons. For years it has worked reasonably well, but when the present strain is put upon it, if democracy insists on retaining that power of patronage—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) would for once devote his attention to-listening to a connected argument—

Mr. COVE: We want the connected argument.

Lord E. PERCY: He has had some experience of teaching—

Mr. COVE: Long ago.

Lord E. PERCY: —and I hope that it has not entirely destroyed his capacity for learning.

Mr. COVE: It all depends on the teacher.

Lord E. PERCY: Great strain is now being put upon the system of patronage exercised by elected persons, and that system is breaking down. You cannot expect me or any serious Member of this House to weep bitter tears because that dangerous power that has created corruption in every democracy in the world is being taken out of the hands of elected persons. The waste of this time in Committee on a Second Reading discussion of how this board is to be appointed, apparently entirely divorced from the consideration of what it has to do, surely marks the lowest depth to which Committee discussions in this House can sink. The important thing which we are considering here to-night is not how this board is to be appointed, but whether this drastic and revolutionary change in the administration of public assistance will bring about an improved administration of this service; whether the co-ordination and the unified direction which can alone justify such a centralisation of functions as we are now considering will produce a new and reformed administration of this whole service of public assistance.
What we are now considering is not whether this board should or should not he under democratic control, but whether the whole service should be centralised
or remain local. On that point I ask the Committee and the Government to consider the very grave fears and questionings of a number of hon. Members in all parts of the House. We are saying that this centralisation ought to have as its result a co-ordination of all the resources of the nation in dealing with this problem which is covered by Part II of the Bill. It is not a problem of mere relief; it is a problem of the reconstitution of the individual who has fallen on these evil times. It is a problem of the resettlement of the individual and of the family. It is a problem of the reconstruction of the texture of a whole section of society. In the depressed areas, it is a problem of the reconstruction of those areas as a whole. It is for that reason and for that alone, it is in that hope and in that alone, that we should agree to such a drastic centralisation of the whole service of public assistance.
Are we to be disappointed? I would direct the attention of the Minister to the questions I am putting. Is this centralised board really to be in that more intimate touch with all the administrative resources of the nation as will enable it to be not a mere relief body but a reconstruction and resettlement body? Is it going to have the power, when it has to deal with a problem such as that of Tyneside, to go beyond mere relief activity and initiate and launch a great reconstruction of that whole area? The hon. Member opposite shakes his head.

Mr. A. BEVAN: You know it has not; you said it had.

Lord E. PERCY: I beg the hon. Member's pardon; I did not say anything of the kind. I know perfectly well that this board in itself is not going to have the power to replan the whole of Tyneside. The question is whether the policy of the Government who bring in this Measure is to use this instrument as one essential part of a great national scheme of resettlement and reconstruction. That is the first question.
The second question is the degree of local responsibility which is going to be placed upon these so-called advisory committees. It is perfectly clear that the attempt of any board, comprehensively dealing with this problem, in dealing with
the individual in all his aspects or with the depressed society in which he lives, in all its aspects, has its centralised and national aspect and also its intimate local aspect. If these local committees are to be merely advisory committees and to be consulted merely on occasion by the administrative officials, they will be useless. That is not what is required by the situation. Are these local committees, however much you may call them advisory, to be really local executives, in practice, controlling the action of the local officials, subject, of course, to being overruled by the central body, and with a real measure of responsibility for local action? Those are the two broad questions which are important.
Are we going to get greater national command over all the problems of policy necessary to deal with this great social sore? Are we at the same time going to secure that intimate local responsibility which can alone deal with the individual case? If these two questions are answered in the affirmative, I do not care two brass farthings about the theoretical academic doctrine of the extent of democratic control. I do not care, because the doctrine of democratic control on the one hand is balanced by the proved principle that your elected person must not be allowed to exercise personal patronage directly. In view of that difficult balance which democracy has to try and secure it is a matter of purely secondary importance how these persons are appointed or to what machinery of criticism and control they are to be subjected. What is vitally important are the powers which they are going to have and the extent to which they can control both the national and the local aspects of the problem.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: The Noble Lord has imported into the Bill a number of considerations that are not there at all. He has also forgotten a good deal of history. The extraordinary thing is that he suggests that the only people who ever go in for favouritism or corruption are democracies. The trend of democratic government has been moving away from patronage as exercised not by elected persons but by persons who by birth or otherwise get certain positions. It is ridiculous for the Noble Lord to say that because persons are elected they are therefore corrupt.

Lord E. PERCY: I did not say that persons who were responsible to elected bodies should not exercise patronage, but I said that elected persons themselves should not do so.

Mr. ATTLEE: That is a very fine distinction.

Lord E. PERCY: Is it?

Mr. ATTLEE: The Noble Lord got rather muddled. This experiment is not a new one. It is really a reversion to the proposals of 1834. Then we had exactly the same kind of position put forward as has been put forward by the Noble Lord. You could not leave patronage to the local people; you must have a body of incorruptible administrators at the centre who would lay down rules for other people to administer. That idea entirely broke down in the endeavour to apply the principles of 1834, because the country revolted. The whole of the present proposal is dictated by the idea that the Government wish to apply certain standards to the unemployed, and they know that ordinary people, of whatever political party and whatever upbringing, will revolt against the endeavour that is being made. That has been the history of administration. You get certain people to enforce it and other people revolt because of the conditions.
The Noble Lord suggests that this proposal is part of a great scheme of reconstruction and that the Government are going to reconstruct the north-east coast area. I do not know where he has got that idea from. I have never seen any sign that this Government had any conception of dealing with the problems of South Wales or of the north-east coast in any constructive way whatsoever. All that they have done has been to try and segregate the unemployed into two categories, to give rather better terms to one lot and worse terms to another lot, and try to remove the whole question, as they say, out of the hands of politicians. The fact is that they want to get rid of the awkwardness of criticism arising. They are afraid of the criticisms either of local people or of nationally-elected people. I regard this as an extraordinarily dangerous proposal, and it is curious that it has come from people who quite recently have been making a great song about their devotion to democracy. The whole thing is absolute distrust of public control. It is an endeavour to put the
unemployed under officials, to hide the whole matter away and to stifle criticism as far as possible.
I am well aware that there may be abuse of the principle of election and that you may get interests of one sort or another put forward by elected persons. But I did not hear the same protests when it concerned the interests of the propertied classes and so forth. The whole history of the last two years has been the doling out of gifts to private interests, and there is no talk of corruption. It is only when you come to deal with human beings, with the unemployed, that we have this talk of corruption. I think the arguments of the Noble Lord would read very well as a fine contribution to a debate, if you were considering this matter apart from passion in a constitutional atmosphere, dealing with social problems, but it is really hypocritical—I do not include the Noble Lord—when you consider this Bill. This is essentially a mean Bill, a mean way of dealing with a very big subject, and the whole purpose is exactly the same as the purpose of the new-old Poor Law of 1834, and that is to devise some way in which you can keep people alive, just alive at a low standard of life and evade as far as possible the inevitable revulsion of ordinary decent human beings against the system.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: To return to the actual Amendment before the Committee, it provides that the Members of the Unemployment Assistance Board shall be appointed by the Commons House of Parliament for a period not exceeding three years. I would say that the answer to that Amendment is quite shortly this: That this House should not appoint Government servants. It should not do so, firstly, for reasons already put forward by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), and, secondly, because this House is already overburdened with work. It has more than enough to do if it is to give proper attention to the legislation which comes before it and to that other most important part of its duties, the daily criticism of the executive. It seems to me that upon these grounds the Amendment must be condemned as bad.
There are of course other objections that might be urged to it, as, for example, that it means the beginning in a small way of that spoils system which is so serious a blemish in the political
arrangements in the United States of America, because obviously if persons of this importance are to be appointed by this House for periods not exceeding three years it would mean that when a change in the majority of this House took place it would frequently happen that shortly afterwards such appointment would fall in and there would naturally be a tendency for those appointments to be political in character. It may be that people of eminence would be chosen to succeed those who had gone out, but it would be a commencement of that vicious spoils system because of the knowledge that appointments in the public services were to change because the political complexion of the majority in this House had changed. On that ground also it seems to me that the Amendment is fundamentally bad.

Mr. LOGAN: Would it be any different from Civil Service appointments?

Mr. LEWIS: Certainly; this House does not appoint civil servants. When the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) proposed his Amendment, he covered, by permission of the Chair, a much wider ground than the actual wording of the Amendment would suggest. He raised the much bigger issue of whether central control is in fact necessary for the administration of this allowance. I for one appreciate that there is a great deal to be said on both sides of this question. For my own part, I regret the necessity for central control in this matter, but, though I regret it, I personally am convinced that in present conditions it is in fact necessary. And that for more than one reason. To my mind, one of the most important reasons which make it necessary is that at the time this Bill was introduced we were faced with something very like a breakdown of the administration of these benefits or allowances, and I would remind hon. Members opposite that their party has to bear a very great responsibility in that regard. There were cases where local authorities on which the Labour party had a majority deliberately and openly made scales of allowance which they knew were in conflict with the ordinary law. Further than that, there were cases where Labour Members were not in a majority on local bodies and therefore could not lay down the scales,
and in these circumstances they refused to play their part in the ordinary administration of the relief. What does that mean? It means that these men showed that they were unfitted for the important office they held, unfitted in this respect, that they were lacking in sufficient public spirit to carry out an unpleasant duty. That was the trouble.

Mr. T. SMITH: They were human anyhow.

Mr. LEWIS: Anybody can carry out a pleasant duty, but in public life it needs a higher degree of public spirit to carry out an unpleasant duty. I say that these Members showed that they were lacking in public spirit, unable or unwilling to carry out an unpleasant duty, and that spirit, carried far enough, means bringing about a breakdown in the administration of the law. I say further that if the local authorities in question had not been able to continue to call upon Members with that degree of public spirit which their Members had shown in the past before the Labour party began to put members on these bodies—

Mr. LOGAN: The hon. Member has three times made an indictment against those sitting on public assistance bodies and says that they have failed to do their duty. I ask the hon. Member whether he will name any body in the country that would not fail in its duty with the miserable allowances that were given?

Mr. LEWIS: The hon. Member suggests that if the law lays down an allowance so high that the Member or committee asked to administer it is proud and glad to administer it—[Interruption.] If you interrupt a Member and ask him to give way you might at least listen to what he has to say. Granted that a scheme of central control is necessary, we have to consider whether the scheme outlined in the Bill is a good scheme or the best scheme that could be devised in the circumstances. At least we can say that, subject possibly to improvement and alteration in minor matters, the scheme outlined by the Government is an eminently workable and courageous scheme, and I for one congratulate the Minister on having introduced it, and I hope it will pass into law substantially in the form in which we now see it.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I think I have listened to every speech delivered on this Amendment. To the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) I would say—I hope I shall not be accused of being superior to him—that I wish when he addresses himself to this matter he would learn something of the history of patronage as well as of unemployment insurance. The Amendment really raises the question, not whether there should be patronage or not, but whether benefit should be continued to be paid to the unemployed in the same way as it has been paid from the commencement of the Act. The Noble Lord did not hear the first speech on the Amendment and the Deputy Chairman's Ruling, when it was pointed out that what was at issue here was not merely the Amendment, but the whole future of this particular part of the Bill. The issue raised is whether the unemployed are to be treated in the way they were treated until the coming of the means test. The Amendment in effect cuts out this assistance board entirely.

Lord E. PERCY: indicated dissent.

Mr. BUCHANAN: At the beginning the understanding was that the whole issue was the continuation of the board, and that without the board there could be no Part II of the Bill at all. Something in the Noble Lord's speech appeared to me to be almost funny. He said that patronage is wrong, that there was something that weakened democracy here. But this present Government is composed of no better men than the average. Indeed, if I wanted to I could say that some members of the Government have less principle than the average member of the House, because some of them have flung over their principles almost for gain. The Minister of Labour has the power to-day of making appointments at £2,000 a year each. It is said that that is not patronage, that it is only £2,000 a year, and that patronage only becomes patronage when it is 15s. 3d. a week. The Cabinet to-day can appoint Governor-Generals in Tasmania. It is a well known rumour which of the Cabinet Ministers is to take the job; everybody knows about it. Why jump about it?
What of the manoeuvres of King's Counsel? Who is to get the next bit of patronage? I see them; they used to
be active supporters of the Tory Government. But they do not come near the House now. Why? Because they did not get the last Judgeship. It is written, not in one book but by many political men of standing, that So-and-so was passed over for a judgeship because he did not serve the Government well. Patronage, of course, but that is fine, and there is nothing wrong with it; it is only appointing the judges. But it is awful, something wrong, something corrupt, if the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) goes next week and has to say to some of his constituents whether they are to have 15s. 3d. or not. I hope the Noble Lord would do me the credit of having at least a higher price than 15s. 3d. It is a little higher than that. I must confess that when I left my friends above the Gangway I thought my price was a little higher than that.
Patronage runs through the appointment of Archbishops, of judges and everything. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis) said that if another Government came in it might alter the board. A Labour Government is the alternative to the present Government. The hon. Member says that they might change the personnel of this board into one which was to their liking. That is stretching the imagination a good deal. Look at the Labour Government. If there is a criticism of them that must be shared by many of their supporters to-day in this House it is of the way in which they packed their opponents on to every body and commission by patronage. Look at every one of the jobs they have done. Look at the Coal Commission. Ten thousand pounds a year of patronage. Sir Ernest Gower, packed on by an opponent of the Labour movement.

Mr. LEWIS: A civil servant.

Mr. BUCHANAN: This idea of civil servants is nothing. It is giving civil servants less credit than they are entitled to. You packed Sir Ernest Gower on to that commission at £8,000 or £10,000 a year—one of the finest bits of patronage that the Labour Government had, and they could have got men in their own ranks if they had wanted. Look at the other appointments which they made—archbishops—Lord Hunsdon—the whole lot. A former colleague of mine, the late John Wheatley, said that the one way to be certain of being
appointed to a good job by the Labour party was to belong to the opponents of the Labour party.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is that why you left?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am one of the few persons in this House who has stuck to Labour party ideas. My criticism of my Labour party colleagues is that they have left Labour party ideas. I am one of the few who have retained those ideas and I hope at some time to cross swords with them on that point. Along with one or two of my colleagues I refused to vote for robbing the unemployed when the Labour Government was in office, and on the day when the Labour party took that action, they deserted Labour party ideas. They may make whatever excuse they like, but on the day when a Labour man voted for the robbing of the servant girl he deserted every principle he formerly possessed.
To return to the Amendment, the proposal which we are discussing gives this board terrible powers, and it would be well for the Committee to devote a few minutes to the consideration of those powers. The Employment Exchange authorities hitherto only had the power to pay in cash. Now for the first time we are giving power to take away that right to a money payment. This board is to have the right of saying that part of the payment may be made in kind. Under the present law the Employment Exchange cannot pry into a man's private or moral character. With all due respect to the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) whether a man gets drunk at night or not is no business of the Employment Exchange at present. The exchange has only to see that the man is decently signing at the exchange and is available for work. But this board will have power to inquire into a man's private character, not merely into what he does in his working day but if they think fit into what he does at any time. There is a point here which I think has never been properly considered. An unemployed person ought to have some rights. We are engaged in handing over to this board powers in regard to an unemployed person which we would never consent to hand over in regard to the criminal population.
I put this point to the Solicitor-General. A letter comes into the Employment Exchange suggesting that a man is drinking or spending his money improperly. This board without hearing any evidence will be able to decide that that suggestion is true. In the case of a criminal the person making the accusation would have to go into court and give evidence on oath and be cross-examined. In this case any person will be able to write in and to say that a man is drunken or that he is immoral. The board have no need to examine the slanderer on oath or indeed in any way at all, and the man's livelihood can be taken from him. Nay, worse. The moment the man's benefit is stopped everybody who signs at the exchange—and there are 22,000 in my division—will know about it and will want to know why his benefit has been stopped, and the man's character will be brought under suspicion. We are placing in the hands of this board the right to deprive a man and his wife of benefit without giving the right to the unemployed man to defend himself or to have his accusers cross-examined.
Then it is said that Members of Parliament should have no rights in these matters. I do not think that any Member comes to the House of Commons with every particular case which arises in his constituency in connection with unemployment benefit. We are not so silly as to do that. If I came here with every case that arises I would only over-burden myself with work. But what every Member does is to reserve to himself the right, whenever a point of principle arises, to raise that point on the Floor of the House of Commons. To-day you may have some important principle involved in a case arising among these 1,000,000 citizens, but there is to be no right on the part of the Member of Parliament to raise that issue in the House of Commons.
I have listened to many Members criticising the broadcasting programmes and asking how they could raise the issue here. How would the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings or any other Member like some day to go down to the Employment Exchange and to hear the man across the counter say to him, "Look here, Sir, you have to get no benefit"? If he said, "Why?" the answer would be, "We have come to the conclusion, Sir, that you are not fitted to receive
benefit." He appeals to a board, which is held with three people present, and they say to him, "You are unfit to receive benefit," though no evidence is laid and there is no person on oath to give it. He says, "I want the reason why I am unfit," and he goes to the only person he knows to whom he can go, namely, his Member of Parliament, and says, "I have been refused benefit, because I am told I am unfitted to receive it." Is that man to get no redress? Is he to have no appeal? He does not know his accusers; he knows nothing. Is he to have no rights at all? I ask the Noble Lord, who has some regard for the decencies of public life, if it is right to throw this million of people open to treatment like that? Obviously it is not.
The members of this board are to have powers that nobody in this country should ever possess. They are to have power to administer the means test. Some people have the idea that the means test under Part II might be more generous than Part I, but I cannot follow that at all, because the likelihood is that Part II will be less generous than Part I. Part II is, in the nature of things, the Poor Law on a national scale. I hear men talking about the Poor Law being abolished. It is not being abolished; it is merely substituting London and Glasgow for Great Britain as a whole. To-day we shall be faced with this Poor Law business coming along to administer the means test. It will have the right to give anything it likes to anybody, to include any point it thinks fit in regard to unemployment. I hear Members of this House sometimes annoyed about ex-service men being included under the means test and so on, but once you agree to a means test, you cannot come along and say that the ex-service men should be differently placed from some other person. Once you start agreeing to the means test, each citizen takes an equal footing and is treated equally in so far as that test is concerned. The Noble Lord talks about patronage, but what about the patronage that this body will possess? This body of six men plus their officials will have all the patronage that they need, and this House of Commons is as much entitled to use the power they will possess in spending money on unemployment relief as any of those officials. This body, as the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K.
Griffith) said earlier, once it starts to work may well be anything you like. It is not good enough that this House should trust this body in any way at all.
There is only one right that I see in regard to the unemployed, and it is this: Tell the unemployed how they are to be treated in a Bill, lay down the rates of benefit in a Bill, lay down the contributions in a Bill, lay down the qualifying period in a Bill, lay down the various Statutes that will govern them in a Bill, and then say to your civil servants, "There is the Act. Administer it." You are saying to this body, with no Act to govern them, with practically no instructions to govern them, "There are a million people. Give them as little as you can, keep them as cheaply as you can, impose any restrictions you like on them." Pick the greatest men you like, pick the most skilful men you like, give labour all the representation you might give them; I still say that this House has no right to part with such powers to such people. The only right the House has is to fix the benefits by law, and, once they are fixed, to see that they are administered decently on behalf of the unemployed.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY: I can hardly in the few minutes I have at my disposal follow the dialectics of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I have never heard a greater travesty of what is, as far as one can see, in the Bill than the last five minutes of his speech. I do not want to go over the point he raised with reference to the Noble Lord's speech, except to say that both he and the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) seem completely to miss the point of the only speech we have listened to to-night which has tried to take hold of the subject and look at it in a really broad way. I speak as one who has been surcharged for over-spending and even nearly surcharged for under-spending, and the hon. Member for Limehouse, who knows far more about the subject than I do, knows perfectly well that the whole position of the Poor Law as it used to be administered was thoroughly unsatisfactory. That is not any reflection on the people who actually distributed the money, but the position was unsatisfactory from top to bottom. It is for hon. Members opposite if they
oppose this board to put forward something practicable. The only thing we have heard from the hon. Member for Gorbals is that he would fix a definite scale in this House and send out civil servants to administer it. He has completely missed the point.
Everybody who has tackled this question—both Mrs. Sidney Webb and the late Minister of Health in the Conservative Government have tried to grapple with it—has been faced with the problem whether there should be a three-part or two-part system to deal with these different sections of the community. In other words, should there be insurance plus the rest or, as I believe the trade union scheme was something bigger at the top with the rest dealt with in a Poor Law sort of way. The Government have tried to put forward an intermediate body, which is a board to deal with industrial persons. As I understand it, it is going to be part of the Ministry of Labour organisation, although actually separate from it. It will be administered rather nearer the Employment Exchange and will have nothing to do with the old Poor Law. The only question to my mind—and I raised it on Second Reading—is as to whether it is in the long run a wise thing to supplement unemployment benefits from the board and whether it is not much wiser to supplement the benefits from the board from the Poor Law. After all, the Poor Law is the last line of relief; it is the last line before the stomach goes, and if you are going to do away with it in that sense it is a very dangerous thing.
We are dealing with a board, and, as the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) has said, you cannot remove this question from politics. I want to put the point of view that when we are dealing with this problem on the scale in which it will be dealt with in the coming years, we shall be up against an entirely new set of conditions. The hon. Member for Gorbals says "How can this be above insurance?" It is bound to be above insurance. It is bound to be administering according to need. Insurance has got nothing to do with it. That is why some of us have let things go through which otherwise we might have challenged. It is an attempt to build up the insurance basis; but this is a vast new conception—

Mr. BUCHANAN: How does the hon. Member reconcile that with the fact that at the present time one of the instructions laid down by the Minister with reference to the means test is that the relief granted under the means test must not exceed that granted under standard benefit?

Mr. LINDSAY: I am talking about the future. Hon. Members opposite talk of this as if it were an undemocratic weapon. It can be used by the Labour party, used by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) for his own purposes. There will no longer be 300 separate buffers—the local authorities—throughout the Kingdom. We shall be dealing with this for the first time, as the Labour party have always wished, in a national way by a national board, and we can use that board as we will. The Noble Lord has read into the Bill extra things, I think. The whole point of this Clause is that its powers are quite different from the old Poor Law powers. I would like to read out the differences, but perhaps it is too late. The memorandum said:
A board is to be constituted to assist all persons to whom Part II applies who are in need of work"—

Mr. LAWSON: What does the Bill say?

Mr. LINDSAY: —
and to promote their welfare, and in particular to make provision for the improvement and re-establishment of the condition of such persons with a view to their being in all respects fit for entry into, or return to, regular employment.
The functions of the old public assistance committees were:
The investigation of the circumstances and condition of applicants for relief within their district, the interviewing of such applicants and the determination of the nature and the amount of relief (if any) to be granted.
That was the Poor Law.

Mr. BUCHANAN: More than the Poor Law.

Mr. LINDSAY: This is a new thing. We are dealing with a board, and I think the hon. Member for Gorbals will agree with me that it has potential powers greater than those of the old Poor Law.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Not one bit.

Mr. LINDSAY: Hon. Members who talk of an attack on local government
must remember that the local authorities have practically asked to be relieved of this burden. For two years they made a gallant effort, and all praise to them, to discharge it. Every hon. Member knows that we cannot go on as we are. It is quite impossible to go on with this unequal accommodation in different parts of the country. We are now experimenting with an entirely new device as far as dealing with the problem in a national way is concerned, and if hon. Members wish to go back to the Poor Law they must present us with a scheme. Those of us on this side who are in favour of this board support it because we think it will do good administrative work. It has the possibility of providing thoroughly efficient administration, and with a few amendments I think it can be made a really remedial board, capable of dealing not only with case work, which it has got to do—there is a great deal of case work—but also of creating an entirely new group of officials, who do not exist at the present moment. We have to train up practically a new class of officials to deal with this new group of people, and I say that until that has been done we cannot deal with the unemployment problem in a national way. Therefore, we have to accept this Bill as a really big effort. If we accept it as a mere appanage of the Ministry of Labour, doling out relief once a week, it is not worth the paper upon which it is written. For that reason a great many hon. Members are prepared to give it a trial, and to wish the Minister the best of good fortune in the future. Unless it can be administered in the way I have outlined, it is bound to prove a failure.

10.31 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I wish at the outset to make clear to the Committee my position and intentions in intervening in this Debate. The Ruling which you gave, Sir, and which has been responded to in every quarter of the House, has resulted in a Debate of first-rate importance. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will, later in the discussion, deal with the many important points of policy and principle—general policy and general principle—which have been raised in the speeches. I rise to undertake the subordinate task of dealing with the Amendment on the Paper—to take the discus-
sion, if the Committee will allow me, on to that lower plane for a few minutes. Some principle of importance may be got out of the Amendment, though not perhaps quite so wide as most of the other points which have been dealt with. I shall therefore refrain, for example, from going into the merits of the dispute that arose between the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) who thought that the board would spend too little, and the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) who was afraid that it would spend too much. The desire expressed by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) in his peroration to be placed on the board was rather nearer the Amendment and its subject—

Mr. WHITE: I apologise for interrupting the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I did not say that I was afraid that the board might spend too much. I was rather dealing with the constitutional aspect of the matter and pointing out that if the board carried out the duties as laid down in the Bill, as we had the assurance of the Minister that it would, I believed that it would be spending very much more than the £48,000,000 mentioned by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) and that the House of Commons would have nothing more to do than to pay the Bill.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I thought that the hon. Gentleman did suggest that it might in fact spend more than Parliament intended it should do, but I withdraw that at once. I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was going to be an attack upon lawyers, whom I have heard him on other occasions defend, but I came to the conclusion that it was not an attack upon lawyers so much as an atack upon the Government for not promoting the best lawyers.

Mr. BUCHANAN: You have not promoted the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) yet.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I may, therefore, dismiss that without any comment. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, in his opening speech, said very truly that this board and this part of the Bill dealt with the most afflicted section of the unemployed. It is because we
believe that the scheme set up under the Bill is a vast improvement on anything that has been practised, and a great improvement on anything that has been suggested, that we put it forward; and also because—and this, I think, is very near to the point raised by the hon. Member—under this scheme the best use will be made of the time and the powers of the House of Commons, and matters which could be better dealt with by a body other than the House will be so dealt with. I may remind the Committee that the Amendment proposes that each member of the board shall be appointed by the Commons House of Parliament for a period not exceeding three years, and perhaps I may say a few words on that, as actually drafted, as a suggestion. I think that, in the history of constitutional government in this country, we may justly pride ourselves on having been more successful than other countries in drawing the line between the proper functions of the Legislature and the Executive. The definition may have sometimes been imperfect, but on the whole it has been more successful than in any other countries of which one can think; and it would be doing no service to the Mother of Parliaments to place on her a function or a duty which is not appropriate to a legislative assembly, and which can better be performed by Ministers responsible to that assembly than by the assembly itself.
One may consider in the first place the preliminaries of appointment. What has any person or body who is making an appointment to do in the first instance? Inquiries have to be made, names have to be canvassed, and confidential information collected. That, obviously, must be done by the Minister; no one would suggest that the House of Commons is a body that should conduct inquiries of that kind. So far there will be agreement, and I do not think that the Amendment would suggest anything else. Then the Minister, having made his preliminary inquiries and settled on his list, would bring it before the House. What then would happen under this Amendment? It may be said that the list, if introduced by the Government in power, would go through either with no discussion or merely with encomiums. If that were
so, of course the change in procedure would not be one of substance. But it might go through with adverse comments; the names submitted by a Minister from the party at present on this side of the House, or that on the other side, or from other quarters of the House, might be submitted to criticism by individual Members of the House, but on the assumption that the list goes through. I suggest to the Committee that that is really a very undesirable procedure. Here are men who are being asked to undertake, and on this assumption are going to be made by the House to undertake, a public duty of a most important kind, and you start their career by a lot of criticism, to which great publicity would be given; that would be the beginning of their taking up this important public duty. That is not only not desirable, but it is not really fair to men who are being asked to undertake a public duty of this kind.

Mr. BUCHANAN: How would you apply that to the Foreign Secretary? We subject him to bitter criticism, yet we send him out to undertake far more difficult work.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That enables me to make clear the point that I was trying to make. The Foreign Secretary's appointment is not made by this House. Once a man is in the saddle, of course he is subject to criticism, and the general policy of administration can be reviewed on many occasions, but you do not start off, before he has even got his job, subjecting him to criticism. Let us take a third possibility. Let us assume that, as the result of an Amendment, something more than an academic Debate happens and that a Motion is moved in the House to delete Mr. A's name, and a subsequent Motion might or might not be moved and carried to insert Mr. B. What is really the relative position of the House as a legislative House and the Government as the Executive? Let us assume that it is not a vote of confidence and that the Government goes on. The Minister will say, "You did not let me have the man I wanted for the board. You forced on me another individual." Take the next occasion, the Annual Report or the Vote for the Minister's salary, when we have a general review of the scheme as a whole, and criticism is made and questions are asked
as to the administration by the board of the duties placed upon it by Parliament. The Minister would say, "You would not let me have the board that I wanted. You forced on us a board that we did not want, and you cannot blame us if it has not functioned as it should have done."
The idea underlying the Amendment is really based on misconception of the proper functions of this House as one branch of the Legislature and the proper functions of the Government as the Executive. After all, there are many occasions on which the general working of the system will come before us. At the very outset the Regulations to be made have to be confirmed by the House. All rules have to be approved by the Minister. The annual report, obviously, will present an opportunity for discussion. Even on the matter of appointment, the Minister is of course responsible, and he can be criticised by all appropriate Parliamentary methods or asked to justify any appointment he makes. This is how the scheme presents itself to me. This body which is to be set up is to perform part of a large area of administration, and for that larger area and the working of the administration as a whole the Minister is, and must remain, responsible.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: The speech to which we have just listened is the first substantial contribution which the Solicitor-General has made since his appointment, and I believe that I shall be voicing the point of view of Members on all sides of the Committee when I express our appreciation of the charm and clarity with which he has discharged his duty. He has had an exceptionally difficult brief to which to speak. Maybe he has done the best that anybody could do with it, and the fact that an hon. and learned Member of his distinction and charm has not been able to do better than he has is evidence of the weakness of the case of the Government. I confess that as I listened to him I was becoming more and more bewildered at conditions which will perhaps reveal themselves in my speech as I go on. I could not quite understand the distinction he was drawing between the legislature and the executive. The distinction which should be drawn is one between the legislature and the judiciary, because the Board will be
chargeable to the Consolidated Fund and we shall not be, in fact, entitled to criticise the conduct of the board any more than we should be entitled to criticise the conduct of a judge. That is the position.
The Solicitor-General, in the dissertation he has addressed to the Committee, has been drawing a false distinction. The suggestion made by him was that this board would start its duties in most in[...]auspicious circumstances if, first of all, it had to run the fire of adverse criticism in this House. There is nothing exceptional in that. I remember that one of the stormiest scenes which occurred in the last Parliament was that over the appointment of the chairman of the Public Works Loans Board, which is an authority over which this House has no control. It is a statutory body. The appointment was criticised on the ground that Lord Hunsdon was an improper and unfit person to be appointed. We still think he was an unfit and improper person. He has gone on doing his job quite as unsatisfactory as before, I expect, but nevertheless he has gone on doing it. The Solicitor-General could not be intimately acquainted with those gentlemen, otherwise he would not think that they were as sensitive as one might have gathered from his speech. Then I understood from the Solicitor-General that almost all executive appointments were made by the Minister subject to the censure of this House. We can raise the name, history or reputation of anybody. There is no difference between those cases and this. The Solicitor-General has made out no case whatever why this Board should be appointed in any different manner from the appointment of other executive officers.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is quite true that in the case to which the hon. Member referred, the Public Works Loan Commissioners, the names are actually inserted in the Bill, but that is an exception. There may be one or two other instances, but ordinary appointments are made in the manner proposed in the Bill.

Mr. BEVAN: We may be able to provide a precedent for almost anything, but the gravamen of the case made by the Solicitor-General was that it would be a complete departure from constitutional practice to do this. Mr. Herbert
Morrison made some appointments under the Road Traffic Act, and they were criticised by Conservative Members on the ground of political bias, but the officers went on with their job. In reducing the Amendment to this narrow issue the Solicitor-General did less than justice to the Debate, though I admit that he was put up to deal with the legal point.
May I plead with the Committee to broaden the issue away from the narrow question into what actually lies behind the Amendment, namely, that the unemployed person shall still receive the protection of an elected representative? There are three classes of persons who will be brought under this board. The first class consists of those who have fallen out of insurance benefit; the second of those who are in receipt of transitional benefit; and the third of those who were never in an insurable class at all, but have become recipients of public assistance. In the last class are all those persons who were referred to in earlier Debates as the black-coated workers; all those who were never in insurance at all, either because they were employed at salaries higher than £250 a year or have never found employment—ex-students of universities, members of what are called the "intelligentsia." All those persons are now recipients of public assistance in addition to those who have dropped out of insurance or are in receipt of transitional benefit. All those three groups are to be lumped together into one class under the aegis of the board.
The status of a recipient of public assistance is that he is entitled to go to a local relieving officer and ask for assistance. He is entitled under the law to receive assistance, and if he disapproves of the assistance he has received he is entitled to go to an elected person and lodge a complaint. If the elected person does not satisfy him he is entitled as a citizen to proselytise, to agitate, to organise, to canvass, to publish leaflets, to organise political parties, to argue that that person is an undesirable person to represent him and ought to be removed. That is his present status. The setting up of the board will destroy that one right. He no longer will have the right to go to his local representative.
The language of the first Clause also deprives him of the right of appeal to his Member of Parliament. The Government transfer the burden from the local authority to the State and by that transference they transfer the obligation of the local authority to the recipient of public assistance. By the same act, and by the logic of that act, they ought to transfer the responsibility of the local authority to this House, but that is precisely what they do not do. They transfer the obligation of the local authority but do not at the same time make provisions for the rights of the citizen. They do not put him in relation to the House of Commons in the same position that he is in in relation to the local authority.
It is the purpose of the Amendment to secure that a Member of Parliament shall have the same relationship to the recipient of unemployment assistance as the local councillor has to the recipient of public assistance. In other words, we want to retain the status of the citizen in both cases. The Minister of Labour in his Second Reading speech said that he desired to divest himself of responsibility for individual cases, and that it would be an intolerable situation if he were made responsible for such people. The Minister of Pensions is responsible for individual cases. The ex-service man has the protection of every Member of this House. It was never considered desirable that the ex-service man should be at the mercy of one man or of a board. Therefore, any hon. Member may raise an individual case on the Floor of the House of Commons. Anyone who has had experience of the Ministry of Pensions will know that we do not raise these individual cases, because the power to raise them is usually sufficient. I have, however, known instances where individual cases have been raised, and redress has been obtained. The ex-service man will come under the proposed board and his pension will be treated under the board, but the Government will destroy that ex-service man's right to appeal to this House, although the unemployment assistance officer may take away from him the pension that has been awarded by this House. We say that this Clause is the backbone of the Bill and that once we have parted with it we have parted with such substantial powers as make the rest almost of no importance.

It being Eleven of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — INDIA (TERRORISM).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

11.1 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I have no wish to detain the House unnecessarily, but feel it my duty to bring before the House a very important revolutionary leaflet lately discovered of which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for India appeared yesterday to be unaware. It is signed by the President of the Council of the Chittagong branch of the Indian Republican Army, whatever that may be. After using very violent terms about the alleged brutality of British rule it calls on the Chittagong branch of the Indian Republican Army
to launch again with full vigour and energy an unrelenting and never-failing campaign against every Englishman, whether official or non-official, men or women, young or old, and all sorts of drastic steps will be taken, and nothing will be spared in this campaign, and for this the Army takes all responsibility for fulfilling the project. The Indian Republican Army wants to subvert the tyrannical Government, to break off the chains, to cut off all connection with Britain, to assert the national independence of India. And in pursuance of these circumstances, the Indian Republican Army further proclaims with bitter indignation to wreak vengeance on these usurpers, and is confined (sic) to carry on indiscriminate massacre and execution of the foes of our country, whether they are Englishmen or Anglo-Indians or our countrymen.
This leaflet was found on the dead body of one of the Hindu terrorists who were killed when bombs were thrown and revolver shots fired at a crowd of Europeans in Chittagong on 7th January. Statements subsequently made by the District Magistrate and the prosecuting counsel at the trial of terrorists who were taken on that occasion show that this leaflet had been distributed since 24th
December.
There is no need for me to emphasise the extreme seriousness of the language of the leaflet, but I wish also to emphasise that it is circulated by a body that is neither new nor merely local in character. The Indian Republican Army, or Hindustan Republican Army, as it is sometimes called, has been in existence for several years. It started in the United Provinces and in the Punjab, and in November, 1932, the Finance Member of the Punjab Government informed the Punjab Legislative Council of a leaflet which called upon all persons in Lahore to burn the shops, to shoot all Britishers at sight, and of another which called for the slaughter of "every white man or black official." The Finance Member emphasised the extreme gravity of the movement and said that experience had shown that terrorism spread with extraordinary rapidity if not controlled. The "Pioneer" of 19th January last tells us that evidence was led in the recent conspiracy trial in Madras to the effect that the alleged plot to murder the Governor of Bengal was the work of the Republican Army of Madras. Sir Alfred Watson, the late editor of the "Statesman," writing to the "Times" on 5th September last, spoke of the Hindustan Republican Army and of its elaborate schemes for present activities and future government. He said it had been largely influenced by the Russian Revolution and the Irish Republicans. On another day Sir Alfred told us of a pamphlet that had been widely circulated by the Indian Republican Army. This included an appeal signed by Subas Bose, chairman of the Calcutta Corporation, a gentleman who, I believe, is now at Geneva, to the effect that "it was necessary to produce thousands of Bhagat Singhs"—in other words, persons who would murder officials—" before India was free."
Therefore, it seems clear to me that the body, a branch of which has issued this appeal, is one which has been established for some years, which is widespread, extending anyhow over four Provinces, if not more, which is evidently now dangerously active, and which has a leading member of the Congress party associated with it. In the original draft of a speech delivered last month by the President of the European Association he speaks of terrorism as being as great a menace as it ever has been, and says:
During the past six months there has been abundant evidence that this anarchical terror has spread its tentacles into every Province other than Bengal.
He mentions "Various trials now or lately in progress at, amongst other places, Bombay, Madras, Calcutta, Delhi and Lahore; some of them, it is said, on an amazingly extensive scale." It is for this reason that the speech, in the original draft, went on to say that the association was opposed to the proposed transfer of the police. It would be interesting to know why this speech was not finally delivered as originally drafted and circulated to members of the association. Again, the "Review of India" for November last, gives a daily list for October which shows that on every day in the month there had been either a discovery of some terrorist act, or a trial or some terrorist crime or conspiracy.
When I see all this evidence of the widespread character of terrorist crime, and the extensive nature of terrorist conspiracies, stretching into several other Provinces besides Bengal, I feel that the House has had very little information on the subject. I remember that when we last had a speech from the Secretary of State for India on 17th July last, he did not tell us of any terrorist activities outside Bengal, and he said that in Bengal itself we had now "got level" with the movement. We had no subsequent debate on this matter, and I quite believe that up to the date of that speech the terrorist activities outside Bengal had not been nearly as serious as in the months that have since elapsed. But I do feel that the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State yesterday, to a question I put to him about terrorist conspiracies in Provinces other than Bengal in the last six months in 1933, was rather inadequate. His statement that these cases had been very few and had occurred in only a few Provinces, seemed to me to leave out of account the extreme gravity of these murderous conspiracies and the magnitude of their extent. If you add up all these cases and put them on paper, they do not look very much, but that gives no idea whatever of what these cases actually mean.
I feel, further, that the event which occurred at Chittagong just a month
ago, which happily was frustrated of its evil intention by the great promptitude and bravery of the police and officials generally, and the very grave contents of the leaflet from which I have quoted, are very difficult to reconcile with the statement made last week by my right hon. Friend, to the effect that manifestations of terrorism in Bengal have been checked.

11.10 p.m.

Sir REGINALD BANKS: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman to-night, in view of the great seriousness of the subject which the Noble Lady has raised, will give us all the information in his power, and will be as open and as candid with the House as he thinks proper to be. Nobody, of course, would ever accuse the right hon. Gentleman of either distorting or suppressing the facts of the case, but some of us are inclined to think that there is a tendency in this matter to take up a complacent and comfortable attitude, and to use that fatal phrase, "We have the situation well in hand," which usually precedes some signal catastrophe. We find, either in Press reports or from reliable private information, that people on the spot take a very much graver view. As an example of what I mean, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the question which the Noble Lady asked him on 5th February. The Noble Lady put this question:
May I ask my right hon. Friend if it is not the case that the necessity for recently introducing this Bill into the Bengal Provincial Council, and the speech made by the home member of the Bengal Government, to which the question refers, indicate that there has been a recrudescence of terrorist crime since 17th July last, when he informed the House of Commons that in his opinion we had now 'got level' with terrorism?
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
No, Sir, my Noble Friend is not correct in drawing that assumption from what I have said. What has happened is, that better organisation against terrorism has brought to light information which was not in our possession before. The situation is better in that respect than it was last July. Our information is better, and because our information is better, we are now able to take more effective steps against terrorism."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February, 1934; cols. 779 and 780, Vol. 285.]
The real meaning of that is that whereas the right hon. Gentleman first said, "We have got level with terrorism," he sub-
sequently discovered that we had not got level with terrorism and now the Government congratulates itself on an improvement in the situation because they know it is worse than they thought it was in July. That sort of attitude is disposed to shake our confidence in these replies to questions. The Government of Bengal have introduced a Bill, the Preamble of which, I believe, states that:
Whereas this question has of late assumed particular importance, owing to the intense and widespread recrudescence of the activities of terrorism and of armed robbers …
and the Home Member, Mr. Reid, introducing the Bill in the Bengal Legislative Council, said:
I want no one in the House to be under any illusion as to the present situation. We are confronted with a very big and dangerous organisation, a dangerous conspiracy, and a growing conspiracy. That is the ominous part of it.
What is to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from giving us once more a reassuring answer to-night, and, six months from now, again telling us that there is improvement, because, again, he has found out that our alarm in this month of February was better justified than he knew at the time? If all these strong measures have failed to check the spread of this infection in India and if the improvement in the situation upon which we have been congratulating ourselves so heartily, is without proper foundation, and if the organisation is, as the Home Member says, growing and ominous, then those facts will be most relevant to Members of this House when they have to consider whether the time is yet ripe for transferring to the hands of Indian Ministers in Bengal and the other infected Provinces, the great responsibility of controlling the police and the judiciary. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take my humble suggestion that in any way to minimise the position when he knows of its real dangers, will be, from every point of view, impolitic in the extreme.

11.15 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): In the few minutes that remain for my answer I must not be tempted into a controversy on constitutional questions such as was suggested by my hon. and learned Friend. All I will try to do is to put before the House such information as I have and without any complacency, of
which he feared I might have been guilty in the past, which I entirely disclaim—the last thing in the world that I wish is to be complacent in the very difficult and dangerous issues that face us—to deal with the two or three main points raised by him and by my Noble Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl). It is a difficult question to treat effectively for three reasons. First of all, there is the risk of complacency such as is referred to by my hon. and learned Friend; secondly, there is the risk of falling into an attitude of pessimism, the kind of attitude which would discourage the loyal forces in India, particularly in Bengal; and thirdly there is the risk in the course of these discussions of disclosing information which would be valuable actually to the terrorists themselves.
Accepting these three assumptions, let me deal in turn with the suggested criticisms. It seemed to me that underlying the speech of my Noble Friend was the feeling that whatever the Government of India or I may have recently said upon the subject, the terrorist movement was spreading very widely and was becoming more dangerous in the Provinces outside Bengal. I do not want to be either optimistic or complacent, but what I can say to the House and what I have already said in answer to questions that have been asked me, is that my evidence does not go to substantiate that criticism. The terrorist movement, I admit, is not confined to Bengal. It never has been confined to Bengal, although it has shown itself at its worst in Bengal. The terrorist movement originally started in the North of India, and it is true to say that it has its tentacles in the Provinces outside Bengal. When one comes to analyse the terrorist cases in recent months the fact is that in the last six months there have been eight conspiracy cases connected with the terrorist movement, that five of these cases were in Provinces outside Bengal, but a careful analysis of those cases goes to show that apart possibly from the case in Madras, where there were special features connected with it, the other cases do not show any new or abnormal feature. What is further satisfactory to note is that the police have been able to deal effectively, so far as we can judge, with the movement and in the Provinces outside Ben-
gal they have been able to deal with the movement without any special powers outside the ordinary Statute law. That is the most recent information I have about the examples of terrorism outside the Province of Bengal. I do not wish to minimise the gravity of those cases, nor to exaggerate them. They do not appear to me to exhibit any new features. Moreover, we have been able to deal with them effectively, as far as I can judge, by the police and the administrative machinery of the Provinces. Secondly, there seems to be a criticism underlying my Noble Friend's speech that either our information is inadequate or that we do not sufficiently disclose it to the House. I disclaim the justice of that criticism altogether. I have attempted to give the House whatever information I can safely give it. Nor do I think that my information is inadequate. There is not a day that passes without my receiving information not only from official sources but from unofficial sources. Very few weeks pass without my discussing this question with officials back here on leave from the Province of Bengal and other Provinces, and I disclaim entirely the charge that the information at our disposal is either inadequate or that I in any way withhold it from this House.
My Noble Friend has quoted as an example the fact that in an answer given yesterday we appeared to be ignorant of the fact that the leaflet from which she quoted was found upon one of the criminals who was arrested in the Chittagong outrage a few weeks ago. It is perfectly true that we have not had a copy of that leaflet. What is also true is that, in practically every outrage of this kind that has taken place, not only in recent months but in recent years, going back eight or ten years, certainly going back three years to the Chittagong Armoury raid, leaflets of this kind have been found upon the persons of criminals. I have made inquiry from the Government of Bengal whether there is anything new or unprecedented in this leaflet. It was an outrageous leaflet. It could not have been more outrageous. It differed in no material respect from the leaflets that have previously been discovered in any other serious outrage, and of which I
have many copies at the India Office. I hope I have said enough to show that if we did not have this leaflet it did not mean that in any way our information was inadequate upon the subject.
Lastly perhaps the most important question that arises out of a discussion of this kind is the question whether our provisions for dealing with terrorism are adequate or not. I will never be driven to the point of saying they are adequate. In dealing with a foe as subtle, as insidious, as unscrupulous as the foe with which we are confronted in terrorism, I should never say our measures are entirely adequate. What, however, I will say is that without exception we have given the Government of India, and the Government of Bengal in particular, every power for which they have asked. I will say further that, just as we have given them all the support for which they have asked, so we will give them every support in the future. We realise that we are faced not with a transitory movement, here to-day and gone to-morrow, but with a movement that has been endemic in India, and in Bengal in particular, for many years. We believe the only way to deal with a movement of that kind is to adopt permanent rather than temporary measures against it, and the most significant feature of the new legislation that is now being introduced into the Bengal Council is the fact that those measures will be made permanent and not temporary.
If you pass from the general position to the local position on the spot, particularly in difficult and dangerous districts like Chittagong, there, again, we have given the local administration every kind of local power they require. I can satisfy any Member of this House, however much he may be in doubt about the general position, that there is no power for which the local administration in Chittagong have asked that we have not given them. The satisfactory part of our situation is that, first of all, there is a splendid spirit in the personnel of the Government of Bengal, and particularly in the personnel in these dangerous districts. The District Magistrate at Chittagong rose equal to a very difficult situation. I know him well personally, and he is a very remarkable man, in whom we can have full confidence.
The authorities, both military and civil, fully co-operated with each other in suppressing the outbreak. Further than that, the European community at Chittagong, which might well, under this grave provocation, have been expected to be drawn into a state of alarm, excitement and panic, kept their nerve completely and went on with their ordinary avocations. I understand that they are satisfied with the measures that have been taken, and that they are giving the local administration every support that they possibly can give. That goes to show that we, the Government, are resolute in
our determination to eradicate this evil, even though it may take time. Secondly, it shows that we have behind us the services in the Government of India, and, in Bengal, with the finest morale and the practical support of the European population. Perhaps, most important of all, more and more we are finding that Indian public opinion is veering to our side, and giving us that support that was conspicuously lacking in former years.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.